From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 1 01:09:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:39:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD and IGF review In-Reply-To: <11453551.972791217535159494.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c19> Message-ID: <20080801050948.C2BB5E0451@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All This thread on CSTD resolution reminds me to inform the list that during the May CSTD meeting there were some exchanges among CSTD members on the issue of IGF’s 2010 review and many CSTD members seemed quite convinced that –being the political body mandated with WSIS follow up – the review will be anchored with and/or finally decided by CSTD, which will appropriately advise ECOSOC to appropriately instruct the Secretary General. This above was not captured in formal documents and therefore is kind of off-the-record. The Tunis Agenda mandates this task to the UN Secretary General, who should make recommendations to the UN membership. It is likely that the recommendations will first be dealt by the CSTD. This may be important with regard to IG civil society’s engagement with 2009 and 2010 CSTD meetings. The actual recommendations may only be presented to the 2010 meeting, but any references about IGF made by the CSTD in 2009 proceedings, in my view, will be difficult for the UN Secretary General’s review process to ignore. That may make engagements with the 2009 meeting significant. And since engagement with the IGF has been one of the main activities of the IG Caucus, the caucus may want to make a statement to the CSTD on its position, if one can be formed, on the review of the IGF and in the language of Tunis agenda of ‘the desirability of the continuation of the Forum’ apart from participating in the UN Secretary General’s consultation and review process. I understand that a review by an outside agency will begin soon and the active consultations with stakeholders will take place over the next year (I am constructing this from the bits and pieces I have picked up here and there). Especially, keeping in view that IG Caucus was ignored in the consultations over ‘enhanced cooperation’, despite our writing to the SG’s office about it, we should become active early with respect to the IGF consultations. We should develop our proposed workshop for IGF, Hyderabad, ‘Role and mandate of the IGF’ also with this purpose in mind. Lee McKnight and Jeremy Malcolm are leading a Working Group on shaping this workshop. Anyone who wants to join this group may write to either of them or to me, offline. We also welcome suggestions for speakers and regarding the format of the workshop. . Parminder _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Divina MEIGS Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; gov at wsis-gov.org; CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Cc: 'Philippe Dam' Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] : [governance] ECOSOC considered CSTD Report and adopted draftk you CSTD resolution on WSIS follow-up Many thanks Philippe for this good piece of news. it is not sure that the CSTD will be able to reform itself totally but it is important to keep trying so that some of the positive spirit from WSIS continues. Sorry you will no longer be with us for the follow up on the process but good luck on your new position where I am sure all the qualities you put to the service of our community will be duly appreciated. best Divina > > > From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" > > To: , > , > > Copies to: "'Philippe Dam'" > > Date sent: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:11:48 +0200 > Organization: CONGO > Subject: [governance] ECOSOC > considered CSTD Report and adopted draft > CSTD > resolution on WSIS follow-up > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > This is to inform you about the consideration by ECOSOC of the report > > of the recent 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology > > for Development and the rubber stamping of the CSTD Resolution and its > > 4 Decisions including those concerning civil society and academic > > institution participation (see my previous posts on 2 and 6 June > > 2008). > > > > > > > > See also ECOSOC Press Release: > > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ecosoc6365.doc.htm on 18 July > > 2008. > > > > > > > > "Under its item on science and technology for development, the Council > > adopted, without a vote, one draft resolution and four draft decisions > > contained in the report on the eleventh session of the Commission on > > Science and Technology for Development (document E/2008/31). > > > > > > > > By the resolution, on assessment of the progress made in the > > implementation of, and follow-up to, the outcomes of the two-phase > > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva > > December 2003, and in Tunis in November 2005, the Council noted that, > > while in general the digital divide between developed and developing > > countries was shrinking, a new divide was emerging in terms of > > differences in quality and speed of access to information and > > communications technology. > > > > > > > > Among other things, the Council called on stakeholders to increase > > their efforts to reduce the disparity in cost of access, through, for > > example, the establishment of exchange points and the creation of a > > competitive environment, both at the network and local levels. > > > > > > > > The Council also called on stakeholders to increase efforts for > > funding of and investment in information and communication technology, > > to advance broadband access, including wireless access in areas and > > countries in which it was still limited or nonexistent. It also > > called on those actors to continue to develop and disseminate > > easy-to-use applications and services for mobile phones and related > > devices, especially those that are useful in rural areas and work with > > low bandwidth and high latency. > > > > > > > > The four draft decisions were on participation of non-governmental > > organizations and civil society entities in the work of the Commission > > on Science and Technology for Development at its twelfth and > > thirteenth sessions; participation of academic entities in the work of > > that Commission; the report of the Secretary-General on science, > > technology and innovation to be submitted to the Commission at its > > twelfth session; and the report of the Commission on its eleventh > > session and provisional agenda and documentation for the twelfth > > session of the Commission.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > I also want to take the opportunity of this message to inform you that > > I will shortly leave the CONGO Secretariat to join the Geneva office > > of another international NGO. It's been a great pleasure and a > > wonderful experience to work with you all for those past 3 years - > > already!! - and I'm sure that, as I'll remain involved in UN processes > > connected to human rights, I'll cross many of you on the occasion of > > your participation in some WSIS related meetings in Geneva! Note that > > CONGO will maintain its monitoring of post WSIS processes and support > > to CS participation in them. More news coming soon. > > > > > > > > I'll also join the CS Plenary list shortly through my personal e-mail > > address, so that we will certainly keep in touch! > > > > > > > > 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: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org > > Website: www.ngocongo.org > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1580 - Release Date: > > 7/29/2008 5:26 PM > > > > > > > > -------------- -------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Divina Frau-Meigs professeur, université Paris 3-Sorbonne sociologue des médias vice-présidente, AIERI/IAMCR (Ass.Int.des Etudes et Recherches en Info-com) tel/fax: 33 1 42 77 91 69 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 1 02:09:51 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:51 +0900 Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Comments on the programme Message-ID: Deadline for comments on the Hyderabad programme paper is August 15. Paper: Comments received will be included in a revised document prepared for the September consultation (September 16, and 17-18.) Comments should be sent to by August 15. I know many of you have concerns about the programme, please make them known to the secretariat. These rolling documents are important to the MAG and are read and referred to by many stakeholders in the open consultations. If you have comments send them either as personal comments (individuals are recognized) or on behalf of your organization. Comments from the caucus would be ideal, but anyone interested can and should make their views known. Best not to wait. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Delivered-To: lists.cpsr.org-governance at npogroups.org >Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake >X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send questions or >false-positive reports to help at electricembers.net >Subject: [governance] important: Comments on the programme paper - deadline > August 15 >Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake >X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org >X-Sequence: 4724 >X-no-archive: yes >List-Id: >List-Archive: >List-Help: >List-Owner: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: >List-Unsubscribe: > > >Hi, > >Comments on the Hyderabad programme paper should be submitted by August 15. > >Programme is online at > > >Thanks, > >Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Aug 1 04:00:41 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:00:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD and IGF review In-Reply-To: <20080801050948.C2BB5E0451@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080801050948.C2BB5E0451@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Thanks for this information. I can confirm an outside evaluator for the IGF review is being considered, but it is not completely certain that such a review will be undertaken. But all should be decided in a week or so, and as soon as it is a (assuming its decided an outside evaluation is needed) draft terms of reference will be posted on the IGF website. Any outside review would be to provide "food for thought" type input for the IGF to consider. About CSTD and timing. If there's to be an IGF in 2011 then a decision will need to be made well in advance to allow for the selection of a host country and to allow the host time to prepare. My guess, only a guess, is the 2009 IGF would be the forum where "formal consultation with Forum participants" takes place. IGF's cost a lot of money ($ million) to hold and finding facilities for a couple of thousand people can't happen overnight. Jeremy, Lee: could you provide an update on progress with the workshop. Thanks, Adam At 11:41 AM +0530 8/1/08, Parminder wrote: >Hi All > >This thread on CSTD resolution reminds me to >inform the list that during the May CSTD meeting >there were some exchanges among CSTD members on >the issue of IGF¹s 2010 review and many CSTD >members seemed quite convinced that ­being the >political body mandated with WSIS follow up ­ >the review will be anchored with and/or finally >decided by CSTD, which will appropriately advise >ECOSOC to appropriately instruct the Secretary >General. > >This above was not captured in formal documents >and therefore is kind of off-the-record.   > >The Tunis Agenda mandates this task to the UN >Secretary General, who should make >recommendations to the UN membership. It is >likely that the recommendations will first be >dealt by the CSTD. > >This may be important with regard to IG civil >society¹s engagement with 2009 and 2010 CSTD >meetings. > >The actual recommendations may only be presented >to the 2010 meeting, but any references about >IGF made by the CSTD in 2009 proceedings, in my >view, will be difficult for the UN Secretary >General¹s review process to ignore. That may >make engagements with the 2009 meeting >significant. > >And since engagement with the IGF has been one >of the main activities of the IG Caucus, the >caucus may want to make a statement to the CSTD >on its position, if one can be formed, on the >review of the IGF and in the language of Tunis >agenda of Œthe desirability of the continuation >of the Forum¹ apart from participating in the UN >Secretary General¹s consultation and review >process. > >I understand that a review by an outside agency >will begin soon and the active consultations >with stakeholders will take place over the next >year (I am constructing this from the bits and >pieces I have picked up here and there). > >Especially, keeping in view that IG Caucus was >ignored in the consultations over Œenhanced >cooperation¹, despite our writing to the SG¹s >office about it, we should become active early >with respect to the IGF consultations. > >We should develop our proposed workshop for IGF, >Hyderabad, ŒRole and mandate of the IGF¹ also >with this purpose in mind. Lee McKnight and >Jeremy Malcolm are leading a Working Group on >shaping this workshop. Anyone who wants to join >this group may write to either of them or to me, >offline. We also welcome suggestions for >speakers and regarding the format of the >workshop.   >. >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 jsarr at refer.sn Fri Aug 1 13:35:52 2008 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:35:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC considered CSTD Report and adopted draft In-Reply-To: <200807301310.m6UDAcGV019472@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> References: <200807301310.m6UDAcGV019472@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20080801173552.xwctbg5c00k0scw8@courrier.refer.sn> Bonjour Philippe, Je te félicite pour le travail que tu as fait à CONGO et qui nous a beaucoup profité à tous. Merci donc et bonne chance pour ton nouveau poste. Je suis sûr que ta valeur y sera bien vite reconnue. Salutations amicales. Joseph SARR Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam : > Dear all, > > > > This is to inform you about the consideration by ECOSOC of the report of the > recent 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for > Development and the rubber stamping of the CSTD Resolution and its 4 > Decisions including those concerning civil society and academic institution > participation (see my previous posts on 2 and 6 June 2008). > > > > See also ECOSOC Press Release: > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ecosoc6365.doc.htm on 18 July 2008. > > > > "Under its item on science and technology for development, the Council > adopted, without a vote, one draft resolution and four draft decisions > contained in the report on the eleventh session of the Commission on Science > and Technology for Development (document E/2008/31). > > > > By the resolution, on assessment of the progress made in the implementation > of, and follow-up to, the outcomes of the two-phase World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva December 2003, and in Tunis in > November 2005, the Council noted that, while in general the digital divide > between developed and developing countries was shrinking, a new divide was > emerging in terms of differences in quality and speed of access to > information and communications technology. > > > > Among other things, the Council called on stakeholders to increase their > efforts to reduce the disparity in cost of access, through, for example, the > establishment of exchange points and the creation of a competitive > environment, both at the network and local levels. > > > > The Council also called on stakeholders to increase efforts for funding of > and investment in information and communication technology, to advance > broadband access, including wireless access in areas and countries in which > it was still limited or nonexistent. It also called on those actors to > continue to develop and disseminate easy-to-use applications and services > for mobile phones and related devices, especially those that are useful in > rural areas and work with low bandwidth and high latency. > > > > The four draft decisions were on participation of non-governmental > organizations and civil society entities in the work of the Commission on > Science and Technology for Development at its twelfth and thirteenth > sessions; participation of academic entities in the work of that Commission; > the report of the Secretary-General on science, technology and innovation to > be submitted to the Commission at its twelfth session; and the report of the > Commission on its eleventh session and provisional agenda and documentation > for the twelfth session of the Commission.'' > > > > > > I also want to take the opportunity of this message to inform you that I > will shortly leave the CONGO Secretariat to join the Geneva office of > another international NGO. It's been a great pleasure and a wonderful > experience to work with you all for those past 3 years - already!! - and I'm > sure that, as I'll remain involved in UN processes connected to human > rights, I'll cross many of you on the occasion of your participation in some > WSIS related meetings in Geneva! Note that CONGO will maintain its > monitoring of post WSIS processes and support to CS participation in them. > More news coming soon. > > > > I'll also join the CS Plenary list shortly through my personal e-mail > address, so that we will certainly keep in touch! > > > > 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: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org > Website: www.ngocongo.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From icggov at johnlevine.com Sat Aug 2 18:10:53 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 2 Aug 2008 22:10:53 -0000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <052401c8f349$a1ec4fc0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing student, >with barely a word of encouragement. The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but it ain't going to happen. The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the harrumphing governments would agree. So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 1 21:16:52 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:16:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <4893B584.7FC44AD1@ix.netcom.com> John and all, I for one amd glad that DOC will remain in control even though they often times make significant mistakes or don't act promptly enough when a situation is clearly needing prompt addressing. John Levine wrote: > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing student, > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > harrumphing governments would agree. > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 2 19:56:13 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:56:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <07a601c8f4fb$5bae5720$8b00a8c0@IAN> John, it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether managed benignly or not. It has to change and will be changed. Whether the fairly ineffective current initiative by the UN will have much to do with it changing remains to be seen, but the Internet will not remain in a form where any one single government has such power. Nor should it. Ian Peter (harrumphing on principle) > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: 03 August 2008 08:11 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > student, > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > harrumphing governments would agree. > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 > 6:59 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 2 20:33:38 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:33:38 +1000 Subject: FW: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Message-ID: <07aa01c8f500$95a5b810$8b00a8c0@IAN> John, it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether managed benignly or not. It has to change and will be changed. Whether the fairly ineffective current initiative by the UN will have much to do with it changing remains to be seen, but the Internet will not remain in a form where any one single government has such power. Nor should it. Ian Peter (harrumphing on principle) > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: 03 August 2008 08:11 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > student, > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that >< would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > harrumphing governments would agree. > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 > 6:59 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 8/2/2008 5:30 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 2 00:28:22 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:28:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <07a601c8f4fb$5bae5720$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4893E266.EFC1CF01@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, The Internet never has been, and likely never will be dominated by any one government power. ( harrumphing on fact ) Other non-IANA root servers are everywhere. It's only a matter of if and whether or not service providers or privately/publically hosted registries and registrars desire to use them. Example: www.pccf.net It has been proclaimed by the IANA/ICANN that the IPv4 address space is running out of PI space available and that a push to migrate to IPv6 is strongly recommended, by the IANA and other IP RIR's. But there are other alternatives such as IPv8 and IPv9, which are not as well known as IPv6. Yet it is the Telco's, service providers that have the choice to make which direction or directionS they desire or believe they should/want to take. Such alternatives are not influenced or dominated by any government what so ever, nor does the UN have any say so in their management either, and it is highly unlikely such will ever occur or even be considered. From where I sit, as if anyone cares, the UN is a political grab bag of various special interest groups that seek political power and influence. This was not what the UN was originally envisioned, but has unfortunately become. Ian Peter wrote: > John, it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether managed > benignly or not. It has to change and will be changed. Whether the fairly > ineffective current initiative by the UN will have much to do with it > changing remains to be seen, but the Internet will not remain in a form > where any one single government has such power. Nor should it. > > Ian Peter (harrumphing on principle) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > Sent: 03 August 2008 08:11 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > > student, > > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > > harrumphing governments would agree. > > > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > > > 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 > > 6:59 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 3 03:05:13 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Message-ID: <716037.79225.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Jeffrey, Attacks on the UN do you know favours. Even The Economist, not a right or left wing publication says "The post-war global institutions have largely worked well. But rising countries and growing threats are challenging their pre-eminence". I don't see the UN as being the answer to ICANN's US influence, but it is most certainly not "a political grab bag of various special interest groups that seek political power and influence." The full article in The Economist is at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11664289. Regards, David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeffrey A. Williams To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: John Levine ; Dr Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, 2 August, 2008 2:28:22 PM Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Ian and all, The Internet never has been, and likely never will be dominated by any one government power. ( harrumphing on fact ) Other non-IANA root servers are everywhere. It's only a matter of if and whether or not service providers or privately/publically hosted registries and registrars desire to use them. Example: www.pccf.net It has been proclaimed by the IANA/ICANN that the IPv4 address space is running out of PI space available and that a push to migrate to IPv6 is strongly recommended, by the IANA and other IP RIR's. But there are other alternatives such as IPv8 and IPv9, which are not as well known as IPv6. Yet it is the Telco's, service providers that have the choice to make which direction or directionS they desire or believe they should/want to take. Such alternatives are not influenced or dominated by any government what so ever, nor does the UN have any say so in their management either, and it is highly unlikely such will ever occur or even be considered. From where I sit, as if anyone cares, the UN is a political grab bag of various special interest groups that seek political power and influence. This was not what the UN was originally envisioned, but has unfortunately become. Ian Peter wrote: > John, it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether managed > benignly or not. It has to change and will be changed. Whether the fairly > ineffective current initiative by the UN will have much to do with it > changing remains to be seen, but the Internet will not remain in a form > where any one single government has such power. Nor should it. > > Ian Peter (harrumphing on principle) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > Sent: 03 August 2008 08:11 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > > student, > > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > > harrumphing governments would agree. > > > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > > > 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 > > 6:59 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 3 05:27:34 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:27:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD and IGF review In-Reply-To: References: <20080801050948.C2BB5E0451@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: In message , at 17:00:41 on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Adam Peake writes >My guess, only a guess, is the 2009 IGF would be the forum where >"formal consultation with Forum participants" takes place. IGF's cost a >lot of money ($ million) to hold and finding facilities for a couple of >thousand people can't happen overnight. From the purely practical point of view we have anecdotal evidence from the Athens meeting and the move from New Delhi to Hyderabad that around 9 months is sufficient to organise an event. It's not that much bigger than (say) an ICANN meeting, and as far as I can see ICANN is currently still looking for a sponsor/venue for June 09, and only very recently announced Mexico for March 09. Therefore I agree that while the 4th IGF in 2009 might be a good place to start discussing a successor, it would also be possible to postpone a decision until after the 5th meeting. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 3 05:45:53 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:45:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <052401c8f349$a1ec4fc0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DE96@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Wow, John, It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia for US control. .xxx controversy a "gentle hint?" I am rolling on the floor with laughter. You might want to review the facts, the FOIA documents are still up on the web. ICANN needs DoC adult supervision? If you have watched DoC and its supervisor, U.S. Congress, I wonder where you find the adults? Did you consider the caving in to the religious right's email campaign an example of how "adult" this is? And could you explain (I know you won't of course, because no one can) exactly what this "adult supervision" accomplishes, what value it adds? --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 6:11 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving institutional > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > student, > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > harrumphing governments would agree. > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > 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 Sun Aug 3 08:05:08 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 3 Aug 2008 12:05:08 -0000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DE96@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080803120508.36640.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Wow, John, >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia >for US control. Hi, Milton. You've been to way more ICANN meetings than I have. If you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously obvious, I doubt I can explain it. Regardless, the US DOC isn't going away, so I'll be interested to see to what extent the governance crowd would prefer to demand changes that won't happen or would prefer to figure out how to work in the world that actually exists. 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 avri at psg.com Sun Aug 3 08:32:35 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:32:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080803120508.36640.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080803120508.36640.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> On 3 Aug 2008, at 14:05, John Levine wrote: > Regardless, the US DOC isn't going away, so I'll be interested to see > to what extent the governance crowd would prefer to demand changes > that won't happen or would prefer to figure out how to work in the > world that actually exists. while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think the question becomes how does one get around this particular bargaining position. 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 shahshah at irnic.ir Sun Aug 3 09:26:43 2008 From: shahshah at irnic.ir (Siavash Shahshahani) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:56:43 +0430 (IRDT) Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> John, > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from some governments, It's not only governments and matters of sovereignty and principle, it also has to do with the day to day operation of IANA. You may not believe that a change of my fax number in IANA database(as a ccTLD operator)requires the non-trivial consent of DoC. But if you'd waited six months to have just such a change realized or had waited 3 1/2 years to have your IDN Language Table published in IANA Repository (something that normally required 5 days), you'd know what I'm talking about. Why have I kept quiet? Because I believe the ITU alternative is even worse. At this time I think the best thing is to keep repeating and insisting that US govt politics should not in any way affect IANA services, and if they do, then the USG is forfeiting whatever 'historical role' it claims to have. Siavash ex-ALAC, .ir director ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 3 10:34:26 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: 20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com Message-ID: The United States Dept. of Commerce and ICANN are under contract for five years, encumbering ICANN’s authority to administrate the domain name system to 2011, it is also subject to annual renewal. (the contract itself - http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-14aug06.pdf ) -- I agree with John's assessment of the DoC. The rest maybe up to You. How well the UN-WSIS and Organizations such as CPRS present themselves will determine the influence on the DoC, and their ensuing decree upon the expiration of that Contract. IMO: 'Strengthening' the; CPRS, IGF, NGO's and non-Icann atLarge structures builds better argument for International-Governance of the Internet. In the past weeks I have asked the question: What can be done to strengthen this Organization? [CPRS] The DoC has given us a window of opportunity in 2009, 2010. and 2011 to show them that a Internationalized-Body is appropriate to govern the Internet. My dear fellow Countertarians, the Balls' in your court. -- What can be done to strengthen this Organization?____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 3 11:30:52 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:30:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > The United States Dept. of Commerce and ICANN are under contract for five > years, encumbering ICANN's authority to administrate the domain name system > to 2011, it is also subject to annual renewal. > > (the contract itself - http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-14aug06.pdf ) > > -- > > I agree with John's assessment of the DoC. I too agree with John, they ain't about to give it up, it's a fact we have to live with IMO. > > The rest maybe up to You. How well the UN-WSIS and Organizations such as CPRS > present themselves will determine the influence on the DoC, and their ensuing > decree upon the expiration of that Contract. Not under the current US Administration. I'm not sure a different one will act much different, but I think that's the only hope for change on this issue. > > IMO: 'Strengthening' the; CPRS, IGF, NGO's and non-Icann atLarge structures > builds better argument for International-Governance of the Internet. > > In the past weeks I have asked the question: > What can be done to strengthen this Organization? [CPRS] and you've been told (repeatedly) that the IGC (this "organisation") is mothing to do with CPSR. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Aug 3 12:05:27 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0808030830icef6d00n4079cf888d0a55f1@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Thanks McTim, YES I've been told .... >and you've been told (repeatedly) that the IGC (this "organisation") >is nothing to do with CPSR. But a -Social Movement- is a collective organism. The path of Global-Internet-Neutrality (GIN) encompasses Organizations such as CPSR. Whether pro or con, the fact that You'er here proves that. This mail-list is attestiment to that -Social Movement-. The Whos-Who of this List have been advocating for quite some time now, for a form of 'Independent and Self Governance'. We (IGC) may be Dissidents in the eyes of most Industrialist and Governments. But not from within CPSR. (try to think of CPSR as - Little Switzerland) John's thread - "USG on ICANN - no movement here" is apt, there is "no movement here", that being no "Social Movement". So tell me McTim, What can be done to strengthen this Organization? [the IGC] Or thruth-to-be-known, you don't want Us to be Strong. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 3 13:11:49 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:11:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Thanks McTim, > > YES I've been told .... > >>and you've been told (repeatedly) that the IGC (this "organisation") >>is nothing to do with CPSR. > > But a -Social Movement- is a collective organism. > The path of Global-Internet-Neutrality (GIN) encompasses Organizations such as > CPSR. > > Whether pro or con, the fact that You'er here proves that. > This mail-list is attestiment to that -Social Movement-. > The Whos-Who of this List have been advocating for quite some time now, > for a form of 'Independent and Self Governance'. which is what we have with the (IMHO) extremely minor exception of the USG having a historical role in approving changes to the root (and IANA). > > We (IGC) may be Dissidents in the eyes of most Industrialist and Governments. > But not from within CPSR. (try to think of CPSR as - Little Switzerland) Let's just leave CPSR out of it, shall we? > > John's thread - "USG on ICANN - no movement here" is apt, > there is "no movement here", that being no "Social Movement". Except that which allowed the network to grow beyond its research roots, of course (which is perhaps the most profound "movement" in human history). > > So tell me McTim, > > What can be done to strengthen this Organization? [the IGC] Many things can be done to strengthen this caucus; we can stop obsessing about the USG role in ICANN for one, (we can stop obsessing about ICANN too for that matter). It would be most useful if we were to implement the list of tasks found at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html I like #4 in particular, but "The Whos-Who of this List" (I thought we had no hierarchy here, but never mind) seems not to be able or agree on who might be CS in IG circles, so we seem to be at an impasse there. > > Or thruth-to-be-known, you don't want Us to be Strong. > Is that a question or a statement? If I wanted us to be weak, I wouldn't have made such a stink about following the charter (to the letter). -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 2 19:20:35 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:20:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <052401c8f349$a1ec4fc0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DE96@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4894EBC3.EF428944@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Reluctantly I must admit that to the degree DOC/NTIA provides "Adult" supervision certainly can be questioned or disbelieved. However the degree in which the UN or any of it's organs can do better is of course in significant question, for instance/example the oil for food program. So Milton, John, what do you propose, if anythng? Milton L Mueller wrote: > Wow, John, > It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am > wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia > for US control. > > .xxx controversy a "gentle hint?" I am rolling on the floor with > laughter. You might want to review the facts, the FOIA documents are > still up on the web. > > ICANN needs DoC adult supervision? If you have watched DoC and its > supervisor, U.S. Congress, I wonder where you find the adults? Did you > consider the caving in to the religious right's email campaign an > example of how "adult" this is? > > And could you explain (I know you won't of course, because no one can) > exactly what this "adult supervision" accomplishes, what value it adds? > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 6:11 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > >DOC has commented on ICANN's call for comments on improving > institutional > > >confidence at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > > > > > >The statement reads like an end of term report for a non-performing > > student, > > >with barely a word of encouragement. > > > > The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under > > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > > and, hence, over ICANN. This policy has never changed, and their > > recent note contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > > attention. There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > > and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will > > float free, but it ain't going to happen. > > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > > from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately > > needs the DOC's adult supervision. The only perceptible thing the DOC > > has done in recent years has been to give a gentle hint that .XXX > > would not be a good idea, a hint with which I dare say all the > > harrumphing governments would agree. > > > > So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > > but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away. > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 2 19:49:41 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:49:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080803120508.36640.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> Message-ID: <4894F295.CDC3415B@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, From my and our members perspective is that the very best thing that could be done by ICANN and DOC/NTIA to a lessor extent, is to recognize fully that the user and user-registrant is king. However ICANN's leadership refuses to take such recognition in this light, as such they will continue to bread distrust and disgruntelment, and rightly so. Avri Doria wrote: > On 3 Aug 2008, at 14:05, John Levine wrote: > > > Regardless, the US DOC isn't going away, so I'll be interested to see > > to what extent the governance crowd would prefer to demand changes > > that won't happen or would prefer to figure out how to work in the > > world that actually exists. > > while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical > necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be > done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring > about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania > for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to > be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think > the question becomes how does one get around this particular > bargaining position. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 2 19:56:43 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:56:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> Message-ID: <4894F43B.6FF640DF@ix.netcom.com> Siavash and all, I sympathize with your plight. It is a reasonable one that needs addressing. Yet it is clear that when the IANA was not under DOC/NTIA's supervision all sorts of shanagans went on unchecked, and many people, especially users suffered terribly and unjustly. Ergo, the IANA especially needs all the "Adult" supervision it can get. I hope DOC/NTIA is not foolish enough of forgets the ravages of the IANA pre-DOC/NTIA supervision, but still needs to do a better job of streamlining it's proceedural methods to correct problems that you Siavash have incorrectly suffered. Siavash Shahshahani wrote: > John, > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > > from some governments, > > It's not only governments and matters of sovereignty and principle, it > also has to do with the day to day operation of IANA. You may not believe > that a change of my fax number in IANA database(as a ccTLD > operator)requires the non-trivial consent of DoC. But if you'd waited six > months to have just such a change realized or had waited 3 1/2 years to > have your IDN Language Table published in IANA Repository (something that > normally required 5 days), you'd know what I'm talking about. Why have I > kept quiet? Because I believe the ITU alternative is even worse. At this > time I think the best thing is to keep repeating and insisting that US > govt politics should not in any way affect IANA services, and if they do, > then the USG is forfeiting whatever 'historical role' it claims to have. > Siavash > ex-ALAC, .ir director > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 4 04:53:39 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:53:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? Message-ID: <08b901c8f60f$9a70df90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Some time about March this year a major scam site called www.beijingticketing.com was apparently first exposed as fraudulent but not too many people took any notice Today it is all over the news as many people have purchased fake Olympic tickets and lost their money. But what surprises me is that, a good 8 hours after major news stories about the site, it is still operating as I write this message. And it still appears in Google search results. Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any mechanism to stop major international scams? Or is it just a matter of waiting until everyone else wakes up? Apparently there is a court case in California today to close down the site? Is this because the registry or the registrar is located in the USA? An interesting case study for the workshop on transboundary issues! Very interested in more information if anyone has it. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 4 09:42:07 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 4 Aug 2008 13:42:07 -0000 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <08b901c8f60f$9a70df90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080804134207.7551.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known >major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any >mechanism to stop major international scams? Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, not a major one. There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have annoyed someone. This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed in. 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 Mon Aug 4 13:13:08 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:13:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thanks, Siavash, for your welcome dose of common sense and your factual contribution to Levine's ideological gloss. What a contrast... As I suggested in my earlier message, I am still wondering what is "adult" about US DoC supervision. I certainly understand the geopolitical motivation behind it, but I don't see the value add for the Internet. Avri hit the nail on the head. The USG is reasserting its bargaining position, and yes, it does hold a lot of the cards, but those facts shouldn't change our perception of what is right nor should USG stubbornness be allowed to undermine efforts to move in the direction of what is right. > -----Original Message----- > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir] > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 9:27 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Levine > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > John, > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not to > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other countries, > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > > from some governments, > > It's not only governments and matters of sovereignty and principle, it > also has to do with the day to day operation of IANA. You may not believe > that a change of my fax number in IANA database(as a ccTLD > operator)requires the non-trivial consent of DoC. But if you'd waited six > months to have just such a change realized or had waited 3 1/2 years to > have your IDN Language Table published in IANA Repository (something that > normally required 5 days), you'd know what I'm talking about. Why have I > kept quiet? Because I believe the ITU alternative is even worse. At this > time I think the best thing is to keep repeating and insisting that US > govt politics should not in any way affect IANA services, and if they do, > then the USG is forfeiting whatever 'historical role' it claims to have. > Siavash > ex-ALAC, .ir director > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 3 16:20:55 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:20:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? References: <08b901c8f60f$9a70df90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <48961326.31F62F17@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, No information at all here. But you might want to send in a complaint to DOC/NTIA as the the particulars that you have. Ian Peter wrote: > Some time about March this year a major scam site called > www.beijingticketing.com > > was apparently first exposed as fraudulent but not too many people > took any notice Today it is all over the news as many people have > purchased fake Olympic tickets and lost their money. > > But what surprises me is that, a good 8 hours after major news stories > about the site, it is still operating as I write this message. And it > still appears in Google search results. > > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known major > fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any mechanism > to stop major international scams? Or is it just a matter of waiting > until everyone else wakes up? Apparently there is a court case > in California today to close down the site? Is this because the > registry or the registrar is located in the USA? > > An interesting case study for the workshop on transboundary issues! > Very interested in more information if anyone has it. > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide StBrisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 3 16:29:11 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:29:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48961516.4A0A34F7@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, What direction do you suggest exactly? Surely not the UN/ITU mess! That would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. Maybe just turning the management of the Internet over to Syracuse, so you can be king would be expectable? >:) Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks, Siavash, for your welcome dose of common sense and your factual > contribution to Levine's ideological gloss. What a contrast... > > As I suggested in my earlier message, I am still wondering what is > "adult" about US DoC supervision. I certainly understand the > geopolitical motivation behind it, but I don't see the value add for the > Internet. > > Avri hit the nail on the head. The USG is reasserting its bargaining > position, and yes, it does hold a lot of the cards, but those facts > shouldn't change our perception of what is right nor should USG > stubbornness be allowed to undermine efforts to move in the direction of > what is right. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir] > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Levine > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > > > John, > > > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not > to > > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other > countries, > > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on > principle > > > from some governments, > > > > It's not only governments and matters of sovereignty and principle, it > > also has to do with the day to day operation of IANA. You may not > believe > > that a change of my fax number in IANA database(as a ccTLD > > operator)requires the non-trivial consent of DoC. But if you'd waited > six > > months to have just such a change realized or had waited 3 1/2 years > to > > have your IDN Language Table published in IANA Repository (something > that > > normally required 5 days), you'd know what I'm talking about. Why have > I > > kept quiet? Because I believe the ITU alternative is even worse. At > this > > time I think the best thing is to keep repeating and insisting that US > > govt politics should not in any way affect IANA services, and if they > do, > > then the USG is forfeiting whatever 'historical role' it claims to > have. > > Siavash > > ex-ALAC, .ir director > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Aug 4 14:44:38 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Message-ID: <750144.63292.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Obviously your prejudices against the UN preclude you from discussing sensible options on this topic Jeffrey. The UN has its faults, ICANN has its faults and so does everything else. But overall, the UN has worked. And continues to work. The evidence is there. Regards, David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeffrey A. Williams To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Siavash Shahshahani Sent: Monday, 4 August, 2008 6:29:11 AM Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Milton and all, What direction do you suggest exactly? Surely not the UN/ITU mess! That would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. Maybe just turning the management of the Internet over to Syracuse, so you can be king would be expectable? >:) Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks, Siavash, for your welcome dose of common sense and your factual > contribution to Levine's ideological gloss. What a contrast... > > As I suggested in my earlier message, I am still wondering what is > "adult" about US DoC supervision. I certainly understand the > geopolitical motivation behind it, but I don't see the value add for the > Internet. > > Avri hit the nail on the head. The USG is reasserting its bargaining > position, and yes, it does hold a lot of the cards, but those facts > shouldn't change our perception of what is right nor should USG > stubbornness be allowed to undermine efforts to move in the direction of > what is right. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir] > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Levine > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > > > John, > > > > > The US DOC are not stupid, and they have been extremely careful not > to > > > act in ways that would impinge on the sovereignty of other > countries, > > > so although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on > principle > > > from some governments, > > > > It's not only governments and matters of sovereignty and principle, it > > also has to do with the day to day operation of IANA. You may not > believe > > that a change of my fax number in IANA database(as a ccTLD > > operator)requires the non-trivial consent of DoC. But if you'd waited > six > > months to have just such a change realized or had waited 3 1/2 years > to > > have your IDN Language Table published in IANA Repository (something > that > > normally required 5 days), you'd know what I'm talking about. Why have > I > > kept quiet? Because I believe the ITU alternative is even worse. At > this > > time I think the best thing is to keep repeating and insisting that US > > govt politics should not in any way affect IANA services, and if they > do, > > then the USG is forfeiting whatever 'historical role' it claims to > have. > > Siavash > > ex-ALAC, .ir director > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Mon Aug 4 14:45:29 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:45:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1F41CAC2-54EA-4705-81C6-AF498FDCBD6C@internet.law.pro> > I am still wondering what is "adult" about US DoC supervision. > I certainly understand the geopolitical motivation behind it, > but I don't see the value add for the Internet. The better question is whether there is a value add for the _United States_, and the answer has to be "yes," else the reigns would have been turned over to someone else long ago. And to Avri's point about how to move beyond U.S. authority over the root, the answer, whatever it is, has something to do with making the U.S. authority a problem for, not a benefit to, the United States. A fractured root gets close to something that looks like an answer. -- Bret -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html ------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Aug 4 14:56:30 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:56:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <1F41CAC2-54EA-4705-81C6-AF498FDCBD6C@internet.law.pro> References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <1F41CAC2-54EA-4705-81C6-AF498FDCBD6C@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <489750DE.5070409@wzb.eu> Hi Bret, sounds like an interesting change of strategy. After multiple roots as a (not too successful) method to bypass central authority, fractured roots are now introduced as a means of delegitimizing central oversight? jeanette Bret Fausett wrote: > > I am still wondering what is "adult" about US DoC supervision. > > I certainly understand the geopolitical motivation behind it, > > but I don't see the value add for the Internet. > > The better question is whether there is a value add for the _United > States_, and the answer has to be "yes," else the reigns would have been > turned over to someone else long ago. > > And to Avri's point about how to move beyond U.S. authority over the > root, the answer, whatever it is, has something to do with making the > U.S. authority a problem for, not a benefit to, the United States. > > A fractured root gets close to something that looks like an answer. > > -- Bret > > -- > Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") > smime.p7s is a digital signature > http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 4 15:33:40 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 05:33:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <20080804134207.7551.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <091f01c8f669$02ddd2f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, as this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, MSNBC, among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a few hours ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an industry self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with industry self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN loop, or do police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). Or is that optional? I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some validation. But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines! 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? > > >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > >major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > >mechanism to stop major international scams? > > Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > not a major one. > > There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > annoyed someone. > > This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > in. > > R's, > John > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: 8/3/2008 > 1:00 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 3 18:58:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:58:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <1F41CAC2-54EA-4705-81C6-AF498FDCBD6C@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <4896380F.9A90724B@ix.netcom.com> Bret and all, The "Legacy Root" has compition although not well known or publisized. To the extent that "Fractures" the ICANN/IANA Root structure, than what you seem to believe is benificial, is in progress. The announcment of new gTLD and IDN gTLD's to ICANN/IANA's root structure demonstrates that competition has been recognized. I am however no so sure that such is as Vint Cerf has articulated, for the "Greater good". What would be better IMO, is yes competitive but shared Root Structures where collisions do not occur. The "First in Commerce" rule would seem to be a good starting point for this to be achieved and would address or be for the "Greater Good". Bret Fausett wrote: > > I am still wondering what is "adult" about US DoC supervision. > > I certainly understand the geopolitical motivation behind it, > > but I don't see the value add for the Internet. > > The better question is whether there is a value add for the _United > States_, and the answer has to be "yes," else the reigns would have > been turned over to someone else long ago. > > And to Avri's point about how to move beyond U.S. authority over the > root, the answer, whatever it is, has something to do with making the > U.S. authority a problem for, not a benefit to, the United States. > > A fractured root gets close to something that looks like an answer. > > -- Bret > > -- > Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") > smime.p7s is a digital signature > http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html > ------------------------------------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 3 19:01:25 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:01:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080802221053.84004.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <200808031326.m73DQgOI011987@ns1.irnic.ir> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DEBC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <1F41CAC2-54EA-4705-81C6-AF498FDCBD6C@internet.law.pro> <489750DE.5070409@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <489638C4.4AB7F2C4@ix.netcom.com> Jenette and all, Yes, very interesting and not benificial overall and long term. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Bret, sounds like an interesting change of strategy. After multiple > roots as a (not too successful) method to bypass central authority, > fractured roots are now introduced as a means of delegitimizing central > oversight? > > jeanette > > Bret Fausett wrote: > > > I am still wondering what is "adult" about US DoC supervision. > > > I certainly understand the geopolitical motivation behind it, > > > but I don't see the value add for the Internet. > > > > The better question is whether there is a value add for the _United > > States_, and the answer has to be "yes," else the reigns would have been > > turned over to someone else long ago. > > > > And to Avri's point about how to move beyond U.S. authority over the > > root, the answer, whatever it is, has something to do with making the > > U.S. authority a problem for, not a benefit to, the United States. > > > > A fractured root gets close to something that looks like an answer. > > > > -- Bret > > > > -- > > Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") > > smime.p7s is a digital signature > > http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Mon Aug 4 19:19:08 2008 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:19:08 +1000 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <091f01c8f669$02ddd2f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <091f01c8f669$02ddd2f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <8BE06D1A89F1EAE1499A844B@dhcp133.apnic.net> Ian, Surely this is not a case for industry self-regulation - unless you are a champion of the citizen's arrest? Is it not a regular policing matter? After all, scams have been going on for years, between and across boundaries, even without the aid of the Internet. The first "Nigerian" scam I received came in an envelope on airmail paper, after all. The old Bill has the experience and powers to deal with these, though yes as we all know, they can be rather slow... Paul. --On 5 August 2008 5:33:40 AM +1000 Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, as > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > MSNBC, among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a > few hours ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an industry > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > industry self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN > loop, or do police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). > Or is that optional? > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > validation. But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some > governance guidelines! > > > > 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 > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] >> Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? >> >> > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known >> > major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any >> > mechanism to stop major international scams? >> >> Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, >> not a major one. >> >> There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every >> day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common >> for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and >> the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through >> 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is >> the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting >> company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box >> in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG >> and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact >> systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but >> they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they >> get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have >> annoyed someone. >> >> This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too >> bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed >> in. >> >> R's, >> John >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: 8/3/2008 >> 1:00 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 4 20:52:09 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:52:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <8BE06D1A89F1EAE1499A844B@dhcp133.apnic.net> Message-ID: <095d01c8f695$82e5aff0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Paul, I'm not sure it's as black and white as that - in traditional media (in this country, and a few others as well) self regulation is a large part of the way things operate. And - although I disagree with it - the medical profession operates largely under self regulation. In both these cases (and I am sure there are many others) industries take it upon themselves to deal with their problems in a collegiate manner. With Internet a degree of this is necessary. For instance, police cannot take down a site without industry action - they can only arrest and charge people. But that gets complicated because in a few of these cases both jurisdiction and law are quite blurred - 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. And as John mentioned, phishing is of the magnitude of several new sites a day. That's beyond Interpol resources who probably should concentrate on child porn and similar issues if there resources are thinly spread - and in Rio I spent some time talking to a Dutch regulator who felt he could only rely on about 3 or so countries to co-operate on phishing issues. Yes, there probably should be a policing role here and police do get involved with APWG. And there probably should be clear legal structures as well. But should the Internet industry wait until police issue them with a subpoena in an appropriate range of jurisdictions before taking action? Or when there is a known problem should they act in accordance with some Code of Conduct or agreed mechanism? I guess that's what I meant by self-regulation. For instance, if a bank reports a fake site which is luring their customers, should the Internet industry take no action until instructed to do so by the police? (and I guess if it should act, in what ways, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure effective industry action?) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: 05 August 2008 09:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'John Levine' > Subject: RE: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? > > Ian, > > Surely this is not a case for industry self-regulation - unless you are a > champion of the citizen's arrest? > > Is it not a regular policing matter? After all, scams have been going on > for years, between and across boundaries, even without the aid of the > Internet. The first "Nigerian" scam I received came in an envelope on > airmail paper, after all. > > The old Bill has the experience and powers to deal with these, though yes > as we all know, they can be rather slow... > > Paul. > > > --On 5 August 2008 5:33:40 AM +1000 Ian Peter > wrote: > > > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, > as > > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > > MSNBC, among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a > > few hours ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an > industry > > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > > industry self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN > > loop, or do police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). > > Or is that optional? > > > > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > > validation. But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some > > governance guidelines! > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > >> Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > >> Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at > all? > >> > >> > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > >> > major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > >> > mechanism to stop major international scams? > >> > >> Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > >> not a major one. > >> > >> There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > >> day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > >> for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > >> the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > >> 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > >> the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > >> company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > >> in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > >> and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > >> systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > >> they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > >> get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > >> annoyed someone. > >> > >> This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > >> bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > >> in. > >> > >> R's, > >> John > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > 8/3/2008 > >> 1:00 PM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1590 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 > 8:09 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Aug 4 21:04:01 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? Message-ID: <398660.47271.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Ian, You'll find many ISPs already take down sites there are potential legal problems with although it's not an open policy. And there is a significant difference from comparing self-regulation of the media to the crimes committed referred to in this thread - self-regulation is not about crimes! And if the self-regulatory scheme refers to a crime, then from what I've seen, there is a referral to a police authority. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson Sent: Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:09 AM Subject: RE: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? Hi Paul, I'm not sure it's as black and white as that - in traditional media (in this country, and a few others as well) self regulation is a large part of the way things operate. And - although I disagree with it - the medical profession operates largely under self regulation. In both these cases (and I am sure there are many others) industries take it upon themselves to deal with their problems in a collegiate manner. With Internet a degree of this is necessary. For instance, police cannot take down a site without industry action - they can only arrest and charge people. But that gets complicated because in a few of these cases both jurisdiction and law are quite blurred - 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. And as John mentioned, phishing is of the magnitude of several new sites a day. That's beyond Interpol resources who probably should concentrate on child porn and similar issues if there resources are thinly spread - and in Rio I spent some time talking to a Dutch regulator who felt he could only rely on about 3 or so countries to co-operate on phishing issues. Yes, there probably should be a policing role here and police do get involved with APWG. And there probably should be clear legal structures as well. But should the Internet industry wait until police issue them with a subpoena in an appropriate range of jurisdictions before taking action? Or when there is a known problem should they act in accordance with some Code of Conduct or agreed mechanism? I guess that's what I meant by self-regulation. For instance, if a bank reports a fake site which is luring their customers, should the Internet industry take no action until instructed to do so by the police? (and I guess if it should act, in what ways, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure effective industry action?) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: 05 August 2008 09:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'John Levine' > Subject: RE: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? > > Ian, > > Surely this is not a case for industry self-regulation - unless you are a > champion of the citizen's arrest? > > Is it not a regular policing matter? After all, scams have been going on > for years, between and across boundaries, even without the aid of the > Internet. The first "Nigerian" scam I received came in an envelope on > airmail paper, after all. > > The old Bill has the experience and powers to deal with these, though yes > as we all know, they can be rather slow... > > Paul. > > > --On 5 August 2008 5:33:40 AM +1000 Ian Peter > wrote: > > > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, > as > > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > > MSNBC, among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a > > few hours ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an > industry > > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > > industry self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN > > loop, or do police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). > > Or is that optional? > > > > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > > validation. But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some > > governance guidelines! > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > >> Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > >> Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at > all? > >> > >> > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > >> > major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > >> > mechanism to stop major international scams? > >> > >> Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > >> not a major one. > >> > >> There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > >> day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > >> for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > >> the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > >> 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > >> the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > >> company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > >> in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > >> and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > >> systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > >> they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > >> get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > >> annoyed someone. > >> > >> This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > >> bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > >> in. > >> > >> R's, > >> John > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > 8/3/2008 > >> 1:00 PM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1590 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 > 8:09 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 3 23:48:44 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:48:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? References: <095d01c8f695$82e5aff0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <48967C1B.9A8FC55@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Self regulation doesn't work, and historically has never worked unless or until there has been strong oversight by a governmental body/organization with statutory powers to enforce. Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I'm not sure it's as black and white as that - in traditional media (in this > country, and a few others as well) self regulation is a large part of the > way things operate. And - although I disagree with it - the medical > profession operates largely under self regulation. In both these cases (and > I am sure there are many others) industries take it upon themselves to deal > with their problems in a collegiate manner. > > With Internet a degree of this is necessary. For instance, police cannot > take down a site without industry action - they can only arrest and charge > people. But that gets complicated because in a few of these cases both > jurisdiction and law are quite blurred - 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. > > And as John mentioned, phishing is of the magnitude of several new sites a > day. That's beyond Interpol resources who probably should concentrate on > child porn and similar issues if there resources are thinly spread - and in > Rio I spent some time talking to a Dutch regulator who felt he could only > rely on about 3 or so countries to co-operate on phishing issues. > > Yes, there probably should be a policing role here and police do get > involved with APWG. And there probably should be clear legal structures as > well. But should the Internet industry wait until police issue them with a > subpoena in an appropriate range of jurisdictions before taking action? Or > when there is a known problem should they act in accordance with some Code > of Conduct or agreed mechanism? I guess that's what I meant by > self-regulation. > > For instance, if a bank reports a fake site which is luring their customers, > should the Internet industry take no action until instructed to do so by the > police? (and I guess if it should act, in what ways, and what mechanisms are > in place to ensure effective industry action?) > > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > > Sent: 05 August 2008 09:19 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'John Levine' > > Subject: RE: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? > > > > Ian, > > > > Surely this is not a case for industry self-regulation - unless you are a > > champion of the citizen's arrest? > > > > Is it not a regular policing matter? After all, scams have been going on > > for years, between and across boundaries, even without the aid of the > > Internet. The first "Nigerian" scam I received came in an envelope on > > airmail paper, after all. > > > > The old Bill has the experience and powers to deal with these, though yes > > as we all know, they can be rather slow... > > > > Paul. > > > > > > --On 5 August 2008 5:33:40 AM +1000 Ian Peter > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, > > as > > > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > > > MSNBC, among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a > > > few hours ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > > > > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an > > industry > > > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > > > industry self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN > > > loop, or do police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). > > > Or is that optional? > > > > > > > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > > > validation. But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some > > > governance guidelines! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > >> Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at > > all? > > >> > > >> > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > > >> > major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > > >> > mechanism to stop major international scams? > > >> > > >> Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > > >> not a major one. > > >> > > >> There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > > >> day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > > >> for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > > >> the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > > >> 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > > >> the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > > >> company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > > >> in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > > >> and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > > >> systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > > >> they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > > >> get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > > >> annoyed someone. > > >> > > >> This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > > >> bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > > >> in. > > >> > > >> R's, > > >> John > > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > > >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > > 8/3/2008 > > >> 1:00 PM > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1590 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 > > 8:09 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 5 03:31:45 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:31:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Major U.S. Internet companies agree on a code of conduct for operating in repressive countries Message-ID: Perhaps of interest.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/08/major-internet.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 5 04:41:44 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:41:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <20080804134207.7551.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: Hi, This example resonates nicely with the thrust of the transboundary workshop IGC has proposed for Hyderabad. It's not obvious that any of the existing multilateral frameworks on cybercrime, e-commerce, consumer protection and such that deal with jurisdictional matters provides all that much guidance on multi-territoriality problems. Would be curious what sort of 'governance guidelines' John or others might envision.... Best, Bill On 8/4/08 3:42 PM, "John Levine" wrote: >> Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known >> major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any >> mechanism to stop major international scams? > > Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > not a major one. > > There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > annoyed someone. > > This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > in. > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Aug 5 04:47:13 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:47:13 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Major U.S. Internet companies agree on a code of References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84260E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.julesmaaten.eu/_uploads/EU%20GOFA.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue Aug 5 09:50:01 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:50:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Major U.S. Internet companies agree on a code of References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84260E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <002601c8f703$43c362e0$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Thanks Wolfgang, but I nowhere found a reference to the IGF in this important proposal of both the European Commision and Parliament. Isn't it the right place for discussing this paramount issue ? Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: ; "Governance" Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: AW: [governance] Major U.S. Internet companies agree on a code of > > FYI > > http://www.julesmaaten.eu/_uploads/EU%20GOFA.htm > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 supprimé13875 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 5 11:04:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:34:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> > while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical > necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be > done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring > about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > > DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania > for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to > be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think > the question becomes how does one get around this particular > bargaining position. Avri (and others) In fact there are possible and available ways to seek a way around. But as 'working in a world that exists is a tactical necessity', exploring solutions that are presented in the real world may also be a tactical necessity. If our world as it exists is not perfect, neither can we expect solutions to land in our laps with a halo of perfection. Now, whether one chooses the 'tactical necessity' of living and accepting the existing world, or the 'tactical necessity' of exploring available ways of change, is itself a political choice. This said, there are some ways to try and get away for the US oversight 'problem'... Enhanced cooperation - EC - (I know many just don't even want to hear the name, but as I said that is no superiority there, just a political position)was a compromise open window left by the WSIS to seek a possible solution to this 'problem', among others that pertaining to other global Internet policy issues. EC is not 'clearly' UN, it is somewhere in-between, quite indeterminate, but with good pouring of multistakeholder terminology and all. This is a window left for those who really seek a way out. It is even left to be influenced in different ways, if one does engage. But since hardly anyone other than developing countries govs seem to ever mention EC (developing country civil society is almost not present in global IG spaces) no one seems to really seriously want a solution or a way out. Or doesn't want it that seriously, to risk possible dangers of the unknown. Then there is the IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc power. That could possibly point us to some innovative ways out (IGP recently proposed such exploration). But most more vocal CS individuals took political positions towards weakening IGF - even from what was its legitimate 'power' and domain as per the Tunis mandate. Ok, IGF may be a bit angular space to look for solution, but everyone agree we aren't ready to go to existing possibilities and structures, so new need to be explored, and we could be a bit innovative. In any case, EC still clearly is the direction to seek solutions, if one is interested. Especially if CS can cheer OECD ministers gathering for making global Internet policy, why exclude poor country governments. And we engage well, on principle and strategically, we may get something much more participative and democratic than an OECD ministerial. Well, these are old issues, discussed often. I only raise it to show that there are real world ways to explore getting out of the US oversight situation. But as everything else they are real world, not ideal. And pursuing them or not are political choices we cant escape from. These choices represent our political positions. In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as John Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - 'things aren't going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') and those who profess it by default may really amount to the same. Unless, one is ready to explore or at least discuss reasonable options. And ICANN oversight is political - it is political in US hands, it will be political if any fiction of non-political ICANN free-float is proposed, it will be political if it goes into the hands of a global/ international body, and it will be political if it get dispersed over a governance matrix. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:03 PM > To: Governance Mailing List > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > On 3 Aug 2008, at 14:05, John Levine wrote: > > > Regardless, the US DOC isn't going away, so I'll be interested to see > > to what extent the governance crowd would prefer to demand changes > > that won't happen or would prefer to figure out how to work in the > > world that actually exists. > > > while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical > necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be > done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring > about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > > DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania > for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to > be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think > the question becomes how does one get around this particular > bargaining position. > > 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 11:05:12 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:05:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <08b901c8f60f$9a70df90$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <08b901c8f60f$9a70df90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <45ed74050808050805o53b73b0ei19b3db9d6ef0068b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian and All, Very interesting (and worrisome of course) - contemporaneous with e.g. New York Times and other media announcements that web access to and from China will be widening now! Warm regards, Linda. On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Some time about March this year a major scam site called > www.beijingticketing.com > > was apparently first exposed as fraudulent but not too many people took any > notice Today it is all over the news as many people have purchased fake > Olympic tickets and lost their money. > > > > But what surprises me is that, a good 8 hours after major news stories > about > the site, it is still operating as I write this message. And it still > appears in Google search results. > > > > Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known major > fraud > site that has victims in many countries. Is there any mechanism to stop > major international scams? Or is it just a matter of waiting until everyone > else wakes up? Apparently there is a court case in California today to > close > down the site? Is this because the registry or the registrar is located in > the USA? > > > > An interesting case study for the workshop on transboundary issues! Very > interested in more information if anyone has it. > > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- :) LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* For I.D.: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual DPI NGO COnference Planning Committee & SubCommittes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 5 12:15:32 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:15:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call For Papers Country Domain Governance 2008 (CDG'08) Message-ID: A conference GLOCOM is helping organize. Unfortunately, no funding for scholarships. Adam Call For Papers CDG'08 International Symposium on Country Domain Governance 2008 (CDG'08) November 20-22, Nagaoka University of Technology, Niigata, Japan. CDG'08 will address all aspects of research related to domain name governance and linguistic diversity of the Internet. The symposium is being held to celebrate the International Year of Languages. Scope The symposium provides a forum for engineers and scientists in academia, industry and government to present their latest research findings on issues relating to domain name governance, Internet governance and linguistic diversity of the Internet. Topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to: * CDG issues on Accessibility, Openness, Security, Diversity, and Open-content * TLD or ccTLD Surveys * Basic Political Economy of Identifiers and CDG * Internet Name and Address Spaces * Analytical Framework of CDG * Property Rights Conflicts * ICANN and Global Regulatory Regime * Global Rights to Internet Domain Names * Languages on Internet * Encoding Issues Paper Submission and Manuscript Preparation Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Provide an abstract of 800-1000 words describing the main research questions to be addressed by the paper and include five to ten appropriate keywords. The full paper should be up to six pages in A4 format written in English. This page limit includes figures, tables and references. Include a curriculum vitae (not more than one page) of the main submitting author, the technical area(s) most relevant to the paper, the names and affiliations of all contributing authors, and the corresponding author's e-mail address. All text (main text, and references) should be 11 point font. Accepted final camera-ready articles for the proceedings should follow the format specified here . If possible, please use the provided LaTeX template . Full papers are preferable for the review process. Important dates Submission Deadline: August 31st, 2008 for an extended abstract or a full paper in final draft. Notification of Acceptance: September 30th, 2008 Final Manuscript: October 22nd, 2008 Symposium: November 20th - 22nd, 2008 About the Venue Nagaoka University of Technology, Niigata, Japan . Nagaoka is located in Niigata Prefecture, from Tokyo the journey by Shinkansen takes about 90 minutes. CDG'08 will be held in conjunction with * 11th International Conference on Humans and Computers (HC'2008) * 2nd International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Affective Systems (KEAS'08) Sponsored by * Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) * CDG Committee of the Nagaoka University of Technology * MAAYA (World Network for Linguistic Diversity) * The Human and Computer Committee of the Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan, (HC'2008) * International University of Japan * Concordia University College of Alberta (Canada) * Center for Global Communications (Japan) * Niigata International Convention Bureau For more information about the symposium or call for papers, please contact About the Country Domain Governance Project The Country Domain Governance (CDG) project, hosted by the Department of Management & Information Systems Science, Nagaoka University of Technology, is an international collaboration mapping the matrix of roles and responsibilities that should be undertaken by various stakeholders in order to maintain the well-being of the Internet. CDG is sponsored by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX). The JST RISTEX programme aims to improve our understanding of governance in the ubiquitous information society. It is oriented to social technology (technology and society) and includes broad programmes examining social vulnerabilities such as security and privacy and the pervasive use of ICTs, and the challenges of use and growth of the Internet. END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 4 15:19:34 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:19:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Major U.S. Internet companies agree on a code ofconduct References: Message-ID: <48975645.52A5080E@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, Now if only Yahoo and Google would comply with their own "Code of Conduct", such would have some relevant creditability. William Drake wrote: > Perhaps of interest.... > > http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/08/major-internet.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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 15:55:46 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:55:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Message-ID: Hi Ian Peter Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a parallel issue. In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international level or at national level in South Africa? On 04/08/2008, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, as > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, MSNBC, > among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a few hours > ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an industry > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with industry > self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN loop, or do > police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). Or is that > optional? > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some validation. > But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some governance > guidelines! > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? > > > > >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > > >major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > > >mechanism to stop major international scams? > > > > > Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > > not a major one. > > > > There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > > day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > > for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > > the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through > > 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > > the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > > company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box > > in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > > and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > > systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > > they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > > get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > > annoyed someone. > > > > This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > > bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > > in. > > > > R's, > > John > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: 8/3/2008 > > 1:00 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 5 17:16:47 2008 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:16:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <02a301c8f740$9191d3c0$b4b57b40$@samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Parminder: I fully agree with your articulation of what is. And I read Avri's statement as an indirect expression of the same. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical > necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be > done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring > about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > > DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania > for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to > be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think > the question becomes how does one get around this particular > bargaining position. Avri (and others) In fact there are possible and available ways to seek a way around. But as 'working in a world that exists is a tactical necessity', exploring solutions that are presented in the real world may also be a tactical necessity. If our world as it exists is not perfect, neither can we expect solutions to land in our laps with a halo of perfection. Now, whether one chooses the 'tactical necessity' of living and accepting the existing world, or the 'tactical necessity' of exploring available ways of change, is itself a political choice. This said, there are some ways to try and get away for the US oversight 'problem'... Enhanced cooperation - EC - (I know many just don't even want to hear the name, but as I said that is no superiority there, just a political position)was a compromise open window left by the WSIS to seek a possible solution to this 'problem', among others that pertaining to other global Internet policy issues. EC is not 'clearly' UN, it is somewhere in-between, quite indeterminate, but with good pouring of multistakeholder terminology and all. This is a window left for those who really seek a way out. It is even left to be influenced in different ways, if one does engage. But since hardly anyone other than developing countries govs seem to ever mention EC (developing country civil society is almost not present in global IG spaces) no one seems to really seriously want a solution or a way out. Or doesn't want it that seriously, to risk possible dangers of the unknown. Then there is the IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc power. That could possibly point us to some innovative ways out (IGP recently proposed such exploration). But most more vocal CS individuals took political positions towards weakening IGF - even from what was its legitimate 'power' and domain as per the Tunis mandate. Ok, IGF may be a bit angular space to look for solution, but everyone agree we aren't ready to go to existing possibilities and structures, so new need to be explored, and we could be a bit innovative. In any case, EC still clearly is the direction to seek solutions, if one is interested. Especially if CS can cheer OECD ministers gathering for making global Internet policy, why exclude poor country governments. And we engage well, on principle and strategically, we may get something much more participative and democratic than an OECD ministerial. Well, these are old issues, discussed often. I only raise it to show that there are real world ways to explore getting out of the US oversight situation. But as everything else they are real world, not ideal. And pursuing them or not are political choices we cant escape from. These choices represent our political positions. In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as John Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - 'things aren't going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') and those who profess it by default may really amount to the same. Unless, one is ready to explore or at least discuss reasonable options. And ICANN oversight is political - it is political in US hands, it will be political if any fiction of non-political ICANN free-float is proposed, it will be political if it goes into the hands of a global/ international body, and it will be political if it get dispersed over a governance matrix. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:03 PM > To: Governance Mailing List > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > On 3 Aug 2008, at 14:05, John Levine wrote: > > > Regardless, the US DOC isn't going away, so I'll be interested to see > > to what extent the governance crowd would prefer to demand changes > > that won't happen or would prefer to figure out how to work in the > > world that actually exists. > > > while working in the world that exists is of course a tactical > necessity, one wonders whether it might be useful to see what could be > done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring > about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > > DOC saying it won't let go, largely because of the current US mania > for holding on to so called 'strategic' resources, can't be allowed to > be the last word in this saga. It is a bargaining position. i think > the question becomes how does one get around this particular > bargaining position. > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Aug 5 18:28:42 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:28:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC9F2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > level or at national level in South Africa? > Rui: Is it your intention to censor the sites? 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Aug 5 20:07:35 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:07:35 +1000 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Rui, Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly described above apply. In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can only act if this is a police matter? And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an Internet Ombudsman? It's a difficult area as far as I can see. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > Hi Ian Peter > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > parallel issue. > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > On 04/08/2008, Ian Peter wrote: > > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, > as > > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > MSNBC, > > among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a few > hours > > ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an > industry > > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > industry > > self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN loop, or > do > > police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). Or is that > > optional? > > > > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > validation. > > But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some governance > > guidelines! > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > > Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > > Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at > all? > > > > > > >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > > > >major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > > > >mechanism to stop major international scams? > > > > > > > > Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > > > not a major one. > > > > > > There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > > > day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > > > for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > > > the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third > through > > > 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > > > the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > > > company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a- > box > > > in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > > > and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > > > systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > > > they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > > > get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > > > annoyed someone. > > > > > > This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > > > bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > > > in. > > > > > > R's, > > > John > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > 8/3/2008 > > > 1:00 PM > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > 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 > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > 6:03 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 4 23:06:36 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:06:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> Ian, Rui, and all, Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Rui, > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > described above apply. > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > only act if this is a police matter? > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > Internet Ombudsman? > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > parallel issue. > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > On 04/08/2008, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Thanks John. The site is now down, but I am interested in the process, > > as > > > this was a known scam since last March and was linked to via Forbes, > > MSNBC, > > > among others until they found out (somehow). And was live until a few > > hours > > > ago. That's a pretty healthy long life for such a site. > > > > > > So am I to understand that the response in this case is purely an > > industry > > > self regulation one (via MAAWG and/or APWG). I have no problem with > > industry > > > self-regulation per se, but is there no legal loop, no ICANN loop, or > > do > > > police and/or Interpol complain to MAAWG or APWG (either?). Or is that > > > optional? > > > > > > > > > I see your point that takedowns can't be automatic without some > > validation. > > > But as you say, this would be an excellent area for some governance > > > guidelines! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > > > Sent: 04 August 2008 23:42 > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at > > all? > > > > > > > > >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known > > > > >major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any > > > > >mechanism to stop major international scams? > > > > > > > > > > > Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, > > > > not a major one. > > > > > > > > There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every > > > > day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common > > > > for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and > > > > the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third > > through > > > > 50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is > > > > the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting > > > > company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a- > > box > > > > in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG > > > > and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact > > > > systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but > > > > they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they > > > > get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have > > > > annoyed someone. > > > > > > > > This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too > > > > bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed > > > > in. > > > > > > > > R's, > > > > John > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > > 8/3/2008 > > > > 1:00 PM > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > > 6:03 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 01:13:35 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:13:35 +0300 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as John > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - This is, to me, a personal insult, which is prohibited by our charter. Quoting the charter: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: o No personal insults o No spam * Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following process: o The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem" If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour. At the very least, you should withdraw your use of the term "neo-imperialist", and apologise to JL publicly. 'things aren't > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') This is: A) not what he said B) not "neo-imperialist" (according to the only definition of it I could find online: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=neo-imperialism) As a (very) long time ICANN watcher and participant, JL (who I have never met personally BTW) has a much greater range of experience on these issues than most on this list. Pointing out the facts ("The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN.") can only help this caucus come to an informed perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Aug 6 02:21:37 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:21:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 8/5/08 5:04 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as John > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - 'things aren't > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') and those who > profess it by default may really amount to the same. Unless, one is ready to > explore or at least discuss reasonable options. I agree with McTim that this name calling is inappropriate, particularly coming from our coordinator, and that it is seriously distorts what was actually said. Post-JPA has been discussed here before and a number of people have pointed out that there are powerful political forces in DC and beyond that would make significant change difficult. I don't think anyone has said this because of neo-imperialist ideology, but rather because they live in the reality-based community and agree, as Parminder says he has now concluded, that 'working in a world that exists is a tactical necessity.' I will repeat what I said in April: > 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... If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus could try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. Then maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with me as to whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in 9/09. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 04:18:25 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:18:25 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48980CD0.78CCB7C8@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, I can't see where Parminder said anything abusive. Sure he may disagree with the "Messenger", even strongly, but that hardly is any form af abuse. Just my two cents... McTim if DOC/NTIA released the Roots management, and therefore ICANN/IANA, whom do you suggest pick up that oversight, specifically? Or should ICANN operate without any government or other authoritative oversight? Obama, should he become the Pres., wants an Internet Czar, and will likely get it. And BTW, McTim, I been involved sense long before ICANN was even in anyone's imagination, and was present when ICANN was formulated. You see McTim, anyone can criticize DOC/NTIA from the outside, and I as well have done so on more than one occasion. But without recommending an alternative, one looses ones viability as to what should be done. What ICANN has on several occasions indicated indirectly is that it wants to be cut free of oversight all together and move to Geneva. For this reason, amongst many others, DOC/NTIA is going to be very reluctant in releasing them from their contractual agreement. Secondly, as ICANN has yet to fulfill it's mandate in the MOU, release would be unwise and certainly premature. When ICANN fully and without complication or equivocation recognizes in it's structure that the user is king, as it were, they seriously need adult or something approaching adult supervision. The ITU, nor any other UN organ can adequately provide for that oversight, given their controversial long history. McTim wrote: > Parminder, > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as John > > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - > > This is, to me, a personal insult, which is prohibited by our charter. > > Quoting the charter: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > > o > > No personal insults > o > > No spam > * > > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in > suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following > process: > o > > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of > the problem" > > If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the > other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour. > At the very least, you should withdraw your use of the term > "neo-imperialist", and apologise to JL publicly. > > 'things aren't > > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') > > This is: > > A) not what he said > B) not "neo-imperialist" (according to the only definition of it I > could find online: > http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=neo-imperialism) > > As a (very) long time ICANN watcher and participant, JL (who I have > never met personally BTW) has a much greater range of experience on > these issues than most on this list. Pointing out the facts ("The US > DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any > plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, > hence, over ICANN.") can only help this caucus come to an informed > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 02:44:53 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:44:53 +0300 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <48980CD0.78CCB7C8@ix.netcom.com> References: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> <48980CD0.78CCB7C8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > McTim and all, > > I can't see where Parminder said anything abusive. Sure he > may disagree with the "Messenger", even strongly, but that > hardly is any form af abuse. Just my two cents... > > McTim if DOC/NTIA released the Roots management, and > therefore ICANN/IANA, whom do you suggest pick up that > oversight, specifically? Well the root is separate from IANA contract, so there are 2 issues of oversight, but I digress. ICANN is overseen by it's Board, I see no need of any other "oversight". Or should ICANN operate without > any government or other authoritative oversight? Works for me. Obama, > should he become the Pres., wants an Internet Czar, and > will likely get it. > > And BTW, McTim, I been involved sense long before ICANN > was even in anyone's imagination, and was present when ICANN > was formulated. > > You see McTim, anyone can criticize DOC/NTIA from the outside, > and I as well have done so on more than one occasion. But without > recommending an alternative, one looses ones viability as to what should > be done. I have recommended on several occasions my solution given above. What ICANN has on several occasions indicated indirectly > is that it wants to be cut free of oversight all together and move to > Geneva. ?? I've never seen this mentioned by ICANN. For this reason, amongst many others, DOC/NTIA is going > to be very reluctant in releasing them from their contractual agreement. Very reluctant, altho not for that reason. > > Secondly, as ICANN has yet to fulfill it's mandate in the MOU, release > would be unwise and certainly premature. At the moment, that's probably right. When ICANN fully and > without complication or equivocation recognizes in it's structure that > the user is king, as it were, they seriously need adult or something > approaching adult supervision. The ITU, nor any other UN organ > can adequately provide for that oversight, given their controversial > long history. Agreed. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Aug 6 02:50:39 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:50:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0ac501c8f790$bfcd4030$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Bill, > > > 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... > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > could > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. Then > maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with me as > to > whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in 9/09. > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is for ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. (you might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.....) Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Aug 6 02:58:28 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:58:28 +1000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <0ac501c8f790$bfcd4030$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> Or alternatively, as McTim suggests, no authorisation structure. Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could support. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 06 August 2008 16:51 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' > Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > 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... > > > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > > could > > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. > Then > > maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with me > as > > to > > whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in 9/09. > > > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and > they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is > for > ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation > structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no > clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. > > (you might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.....) > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > 6:03 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Aug 6 03:31:20 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:31:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <0ac501c8f790$bfcd4030$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Hi Ian, On 8/6/08 8:50 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and > they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is for > ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation > structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no > clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. I can assure you I'm not assuming that a persuasive case will necessarily lead to change. I'm only saying that in the absence of a persuasive case there will be no change; necessary > sufficient condition. Why would government officials take a (domestically) politically risky and entirely discretionary decision if nobody is asking them to do it, in a manner that's salient? Believe it or not, ideas and argumentation, good or horrific, really do matter in DC; just ask a neocon. But when all the thinking and talking are coming from one side, the choice of path to take is literally no contest. BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Aug 6 03:43:22 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:43:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide In-Reply-To: <6nlqtj$jd7i44@iron2-listserv.tops.gwu.edu> Message-ID: More news from the big bully. Might be relevant to the rights workshop and DC, APC/COE/UNECE initiative on transparency and public participation, etc. ------ Forwarded Message From: "freedominfo.org" Reply-To: "freedominfo.org" Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:21:32 -0400 To: Subject: President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide freedominfo.org Update, August 5, 2008 President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide http://www.freedominfo.org For more information contact: Laura Neuman, Access to Information Project Manager, The Carter Center (404) 420-5146 or lneuman at emory.edu Washington, DC, August 5, 2008 - Last month, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter forwarded the Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action for the Advancement of the Right to Information to all heads of state and leaders of the major international organizations and financial institutions. President Carter urged these leaders to ensure the right of access to information and its implementation and enforcement. The Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action was the product of the Carter Center's International Conference on the Right to Public Information, held February 27-29, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia. Freedominfo.org advocates joined the more than 125 participants, representing governments, civil society, international organizations and financial institutions, private sector, donors and scholars from 40 countries who met to discuss the successes and future challenges to the establishment of a right of access to information. The Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action, serving as a framework for advancing this human right, finds that access to information is fundamental to dignity, equity and peace with justice, and that a lack of access to information disproportionately affects the poor, women and other vulnerable and marginalized societies. The Declaration calls on all states and intergovernmental organizations to enact legislation and instruments for the exercise, full implementation and effective enforcement of this right. It further encourages all stakeholders to take concrete steps to establish, develop, protect and promote the right of access to information. The Declaration is available in Spanish, French, and Chinese. For additional information related to the conference and materials, please visit the Carter Center's Access to Information project website at http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/americas/information.html or contact Laura Neuman, Access to Information Project Manager, The Carter Center, at (404) 420-5146 or lneuman at emory.edu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 03:51:31 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:51:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Message-ID: <48995803.3060706@wzb.eu> Hi everyone, the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this idea, others expressed reservations. In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for the evaluation of the IGF. jeanette Dear colleagues, In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under this agenda item. At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into action. A few elements are given: The actors: -The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum") - Forum participants (they are to be consulted) - UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on recommendations by the Secretary-General The timing: para 76 states: “within five years of its creation”. Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010 at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting. The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual General Assembly which meets each year between September and December. Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The elements for the Secretary-General’s recommendations therefore need to be ready by late 2009. Para 76 mentions that there is a need for “formal consultations with Forum participants”. Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the 2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for these “formal consultations with Forum participants.” This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their interpretation. The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the “formal consultations with Forum participants” should be prepared and carried out. We thought an external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be helpful. In any case, we should start “examining the desirability of the continuation of the Forum” at the open consultations in May 2009 at the latest. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Attached Message Part URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 6 04:36:38 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:36:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Restart Internet References: <48995803.3060706@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84260ED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/87302_geni_fund_to_rebuild_internet/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 6 05:35:20 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:05:20 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> >can only help this caucus come to an informed > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). (Mctim) McTim (and Bill) So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying the existing situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - saying, I "seriously distorted what was actually said") Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for anyone to check integrity of these quotes to the full text) "....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" (John) I read in the above a clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control the technical body that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the crucial global resource, the Internet. "There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but it ain't going to happen." (John) "So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." (John) The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the effort of all those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. Such derision does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given 'unchangeable' reality, it comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the need for US's 'adult supervision' when Milton wrote >Wow, John, >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia >for US control. (Milton) John replied with >if you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously obvious, I >doubt I can explain it. So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of other countries combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly partronising and (I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. You guys may be immune to such derogatory political allusions, but I am not. And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, especially among people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings a bit of blood to ones head. Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - "neo-imperialist", and whether it was appropriate. The first entry on Google search has this to say "Neo-imperialism refers to the dominance of some nations over others by means of unequal conditions of economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a very general way to view many of the new issues that are developing and will develop as our world grows smaller due to more effective communication and contact between foreign nations." If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is neo-imperialism, sitting over the central and one of the most important resources of the world - the Internet - and plainly refusing to be democratic and participative with the global community in its governance is extreme neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political advantages, does any one doubt that). And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and derides those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or you deny that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when one is the citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the meaning of the term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the sociology dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not name-calling, in that socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current socio-political description of normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then one has to defend against it on facts, and not mere social-inappropriateness. I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a social activist, to use the term again in similar circumstances. And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for John and corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and political choice. No problems for me, good luck. And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on the list what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, you said it first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on the list. (Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the list at various times in different exchanges with members so that we can decide what is appropriate and what not.) So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and superiority. This is all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our political proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever position you want to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:44 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > Parminder, > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as > John > > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - > > This is, to me, a personal insult, which is prohibited by our charter. > > Quoting the charter: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > > o > > No personal insults > o > > No spam > * > > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in > suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following > process: > o > > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of > the problem" > > > > If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the > other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour. > At the very least, you should withdraw your use of the term > "neo-imperialist", and apologise to JL publicly. > > > 'things aren't > > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') > > This is: > > A) not what he said > B) not "neo-imperialist" (according to the only definition of it I > could find online: > http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=neo-imperialism) > > As a (very) long time ICANN watcher and participant, JL (who I have > never met personally BTW) has a much greater range of experience on > these issues than most on this list. Pointing out the facts ("The US > DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any > plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, > hence, over ICANN.") can only help this caucus come to an informed > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "John Levine" Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 03:40:53 +0530 Size: 6800 URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 6 05:47:06 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:17:06 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080806094725.2D62467826@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim > If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the > other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour. The other co-coordinator will in place within the next two weeks. I will announce the election process/ schedule within the next 24 hours. You can then try that channel. And there is of course the 'appeals committee'. In fact, speaking in humour, you should explore buying a season-pass with them. You seem to object to every single thing I ever do, and it is getting a bit tiring. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:44 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > Parminder, > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as > John > > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology - > > This is, to me, a personal insult, which is prohibited by our charter. > > Quoting the charter: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > > o > > No personal insults > o > > No spam > * > > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in > suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following > process: > o > > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of > the problem" > > > > If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the > other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour. > At the very least, you should withdraw your use of the term > "neo-imperialist", and apologise to JL publicly. > > > 'things aren't > > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully') > > This is: > > A) not what he said > B) not "neo-imperialist" (according to the only definition of it I > could find online: > http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=neo-imperialism) > > As a (very) long time ICANN watcher and participant, JL (who I have > never met personally BTW) has a much greater range of experience on > these issues than most on this list. Pointing out the facts ("The US > DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any > plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, > hence, over ICANN.") can only help this caucus come to an informed > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 6 06:01:23 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:01:23 +0200 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <44CCBB16-0893-4AE1-A124-6948E1A50A1C@psg.com> On 6 Aug 2008, at 11:35, Parminder wrote: > ' > And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on > the list > what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of > 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? hey, a lot of my friends in grad school were members. no need to call being called one of them an insult. they were/are sincere believers in what they see as a better political way who use certain political forms of activity and who follow an assassinated exemplar. 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 6 06:10:09 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:10:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide In-Reply-To: References: <6nlqtj$jd7i44@iron2-listserv.tops.gwu.edu>, Message-ID: <489994A1.27333.17D61155@anriette.apc.org> Thanks for posting this, Bill. It might be a useful exercise to compile all the existing agreements, declarations, etc. on the right to information and do some analysis of them from the perspective of 'who', 'when', 'why' and 'what happened'. One of my concerns about engaging in new campaigns around rights is that they are often fairly a-historical in their approach and strategy. Perhaps such research has already been done? Anriette Date sent: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:43:22 +0200 From: William Drake To: Governance Subject: [governance] President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,William Drake > More news from the big bully. Might be relevant to the rights > workshop and DC, APC/COE/UNECE initiative on transparency and public > participation, etc. > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: "freedominfo.org" > Reply-To: "freedominfo.org" > Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:21:32 -0400 > To: > Subject: President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance > Right to Information Worldwide > > freedominfo.org Update, August 5, 2008 > > President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to > Information Worldwide > > http://www.freedominfo.org > > For more information contact: > Laura Neuman, Access to Information Project Manager, The Carter Center > (404) 420-5146 or lneuman at emory.edu > > Washington, DC, August 5, 2008 - Last month, former U.S. President > Jimmy Carter forwarded the Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action for > the Advancement of the Right to Information to all heads of state and > leaders of the major international organizations and financial > institutions. President Carter urged these leaders to ensure the right > of access to information and its implementation and enforcement. > > The Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action was the product of the > Carter Center's International Conference on the Right to Public > Information, held February 27-29, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia. > Freedominfo.org advocates joined the more than 125 participants, > representing governments, civil society, international organizations > and financial institutions, private sector, donors and scholars from > 40 countries who met to discuss the successes and future challenges to > the establishment of a right of access to information. > > The Atlanta Declaration and Plan of Action, serving as a framework for > advancing this human right, finds that access to information is > fundamental to dignity, equity and peace with justice, and that a lack > of access to information disproportionately affects the poor, women > and other vulnerable and marginalized societies. The Declaration calls > on all states and intergovernmental organizations to enact legislation > and instruments for the exercise, full implementation and effective > enforcement of this right. It further encourages all stakeholders to > take concrete steps to establish, develop, protect and promote the > right of access to information. The Declaration is available in > Spanish, French, and Chinese. > > For additional information related to the conference and materials, > please visit the Carter Center's Access to Information project website > at http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/americas/information.html or > contact Laura Neuman, Access to Information Project Manager, The > Carter Center, at (404) 420-5146 or lneuman at emory.edu. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > 8/3/2008 1:00 PM > > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 06:15:20 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:15:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Dear Milton, Ian Peter, Jeffrey and others I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such as on child pornography incitement to violence etc, which are considered crimes in most legislatins. Racism too is consided a crime in many legislations. The site I am referring too is a discussion forum with the same name as a right wing white para-political organisation. It advocates independence for the Afrikaner and dispalys the flags of the old Boere republics and the old South African flag as well as other symbols of Afrikaner nationalism. The tenor of the discussions is extremely racist, referring to blacks as "kaffirs" and "baboons"; containg commenst to the effect that Botswana's economy flourishes only thanks to the whites; suggesting that "they" to do not try "here" (South Africa) what "they" did in "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) etc. That is only on the page on which I happened to land during a google search. On 05/08/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian, Rui, and all, > > Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do > is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more > traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the > other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, > than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, > as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Rui, > > > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > > described above apply. > > > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > > only act if this is a police matter? > > > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > > Internet Ombudsman? > > > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > > parallel issue. > > > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 6 06:17:01 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Dear Milton, Ian Peter, Jeffrey and others I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such as on child pornography incitement to violence etc, which are considered crimes in most legislatins. Racism too is consided a crime in many legislations. The site I am referring too is a discussion forum with the same name as a right wing white para-political organisation. It advocates independence for the Afrikaner and dispalys the flags of the old Boere republics and the old South African flag as well as other symbols of Afrikaner nationalism. The tenor of the discussions is extremely racist, referring to blacks as "kaffirs" and "baboons"; containg commenst to the effect that Botswana's economy flourishes only thanks to the whites; suggesting that "they" to do not try "here" (South Africa) what "they" did in "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) etc. That is only on the page on which I happened to land during a google search. On 05/08/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian, Rui, and all, > > Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do > is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more > traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the > other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, > than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, > as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Rui, > > > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > > described above apply. > > > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > > only act if this is a police matter? > > > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > > Internet Ombudsman? > > > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > > parallel issue. > > > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 06:28:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:58:40 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <44CCBB16-0893-4AE1-A124-6948E1A50A1C@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080806102849.5A5A967891@smtp1.electricembers.net> > hey, a lot of my friends in grad school were members. no need to call > being called one of them an insult. they were/are sincere believers > in what they see as a better political way who use certain political > forms of activity and who follow an assassinated exemplar. > > cheers, > > a. Avri I think, as I reply, this can become a diversionary thread to the main issue but.... Ok. An insult is first of all in the mind and intent of the insultor. You can go back and read how Bill and McTim used the term and then give your views on how should I treat it - as an insult or not. On you facts you may be right. In fact you can proceed against Bill and McTim for insulting Spartacus Youth Club by using it as insult against me. Now when we are on the subject, it is a trouble enough for us, the rest of the world (BTW a much bigger majority) to have to be addressed in terms from US history, and we then need to go looking up the web to figure out what it is..... I of course do know nothing about what this group was, but I can clearly see what Bill and McTim mean to convey in using the term in charaterising my behavior. That's what counts for, no. To go on, now about cultural imperialism (McTim, yes, the appeals committee is there)I think people should be a little more global in the terms they use on such global spaces as this list... Use of such parochial terms itself is hugely exclusionary (the descriptive purpose for which SYC term got actually used)... I bet not one person on this list from outside US and maybe some European countries have the foggiest idea what could ' Spartacus Youth Club' be. But one must remain quite, not show ones ignorance and be a bit squeamish even. (and on the side scurry to websites and waste time.) I think, some time I should try and get some Indians together and start speaking in local idioms on this list.... But everyone knows what will happen. We will simply be ignored... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:31 PM > To: Governance Mailing List > Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > On 6 Aug 2008, at 11:35, Parminder wrote: > > > ' > > And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on > > the list > > what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of > > 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? > > > hey, a lot of my friends in grad school were members. no need to call > being called one of them an insult. they were/are sincere believers > in what they see as a better political way who use certain political > forms of activity and who follow an assassinated exemplar. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 07:09:58 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human rights institutions is one way of starting that process? In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... Any thoughts? Thanks, Lisa ___________________________________________________________ Lisa Horner Head of Research and Policy Unit Global Partners and Associates 4th Floor Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1AH Office: + 44 207 861 3960          Mobile: +44 7867 795859 lisa at global-partners.co.uk  www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: 06 August 2008 11:15 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Dear Milton, Ian Peter, Jeffrey and others I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such as on child pornography incitement to violence etc, which are considered crimes in most legislatins. Racism too is consided a crime in many legislations. The site I am referring too is a discussion forum with the same name as a right wing white para-political organisation. It advocates independence for the Afrikaner and dispalys the flags of the old Boere republics and the old South African flag as well as other symbols of Afrikaner nationalism. The tenor of the discussions is extremely racist, referring to blacks as "kaffirs" and "baboons"; containg commenst to the effect that Botswana's economy flourishes only thanks to the whites; suggesting that "they" to do not try "here" (South Africa) what "they" did in "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) etc. That is only on the page on which I happened to land during a google search. On 05/08/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian, Rui, and all, > > Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do > is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more > traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the > other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, > than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, > as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Rui, > > > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > > described above apply. > > > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > > only act if this is a police matter? > > > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > > Internet Ombudsman? > > > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > > parallel issue. > > > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 07:24:35 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:24:35 +0200 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I clearly was referring to John¹s point that >The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they >will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their >authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. >This policy has never changed, and their recent note >contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying >attention. That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message. I don¹t happen to agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ¹s Œadult supervision,¹ gave no indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary on this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of you. Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order to score cheap rhetorical points. I also noted that it¹s not appropriate for the coordinator to be attacking people and hurling around ideological labels. I stand by that, you are not just any subscriber to the list, you¹re the caucus coordinator so belligerent fight picking is unhelpful. BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing Œadult supervision,¹ they are talking about ICANN---the board, et al---needing oversight. It may not be the form of oversight you or I favor, but that¹s a legitimate and often expressed view that can be disputed on the merits without dipping into the gutter. In contrast, I didn¹t hear him saying that other countries are juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist seems a tad misplaced. Sorry to hear it brings blood to your head, particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. Or we could agree to disagree and move on to something more useful. Bill On 8/6/08 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> >can only help this caucus come to an informed >> > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't >> > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). (Mctim) > > McTim (and Bill) > > So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying the existing > situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - saying, I > "seriously distorted what was actually said") > > Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for anyone to check > integrity of these quotes to the full text) > > "....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" (John) > > I read in the above a clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that > the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control the technical body > that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the crucial global > resource, the Internet. > > > "There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside of > ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but it > ain't going to happen." (John) > > "So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, but > don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." (John) > > The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the effort of all > those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. Such derision > does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given 'unchangeable' reality, it > comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. > > And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the need for US's > 'adult supervision' when Milton wrote > >> >Wow, John, >> >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am >> >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia >> >for US control. (Milton) > > John replied with > >> >if you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously obvious, I >> >doubt I can explain it. > > So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of other countries > combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly partronising and > (I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. > > You guys may be immune to such derogatory political allusions, but I am not. > And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, especially among > people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings a bit of blood > to ones head. > > Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - "neo-imperialist", and whether > it was appropriate. > > The first entry on Google search has this to say "Neo-imperialism refers to > the dominance of some nations over others by means of unequal conditions of > economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a very general way to > view many of the new issues that are developing and will develop as our > world grows smaller due to more effective communication and contact between > foreign nations." > > If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is neo-imperialism, > sitting over the central and one of the most important resources of the > world - the Internet - and plainly refusing to be democratic and > participative with the global community in its governance is extreme > neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political advantages, does > any one doubt that). > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and derides > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or you deny > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when one is the > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the meaning of the > term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the sociology > dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not name-calling, in that > socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current socio-political description of > normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then one has to > defend against it on facts, and not mere social-inappropriateness. > > I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a social activist, > to use the term again in similar circumstances. > > And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for John and > corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and political choice. No > problems for me, good luck. > > And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on the list > what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of > 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, you said it > first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on the list. > > (Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the list at various > times in different exchanges with members so that we can decide what is > appropriate and what not.) > > So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and superiority. This is > all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our political > proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever position you want > to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 6 07:27:47 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:27:47 +0300 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:24 PM, William Drake wrote: > Parminder, > > I clearly was referring to John's point that > >>The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they >>will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their >>authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. >>This policy has never changed, and their recent note >>contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying >>attention. > > That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message. I don't happen to > agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ's 'adult supervision,' gave no > indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary on > this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of you. > Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order to score > cheap rhetorical points. > > I also noted that it's not appropriate for the coordinator to be attacking > people and hurling around ideological labels. I stand by that, you are not > just any subscriber to the list, you're the caucus coordinator so > belligerent fight picking is unhelpful. > > BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing 'adult supervision,' > they are talking about ICANN---the board, et al---needing oversight. It may > not be the form of oversight you or I favor, but that's a legitimate and > often expressed view that can be disputed on the merits without dipping into > the gutter. In contrast, I didn't hear him saying that other countries are > juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist > seems a tad misplaced. "close-following" Bill on all the above. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 6 07:43:35 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:43:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] beijing ticket scam - is this governed at all? In-Reply-To: <20080804134207.7551.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080804134207.7551.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: John, Hi. Some of these issues were raised by APWG at the Paris ICANN meeting, at least in a presentation to the cross constituency meeting (the business groups of the GNSO) I think it would be interesting if you (perhaps with APWG) could write up the problem and possible solutions (with those solutions associated problems) and send it to the secretariat before August 15 suggesting it as an issue to be considered during the main session "Fostering Security Privacy and Openness" (the title may not seem appropriate, but I think it's an OK fit with the intent of the session.) About the Beijing problem -- odd the Olympic organization's IP lawyers didn't have it taken down. They seem to think they own all uses of Olympic and I thought we're pretty aggressive. Adam At 1:42 PM +0000 8/4/08, John Levine wrote: > >Very interested in analysis of why this is so when it is a known >>major fraud site that has victims in many countries. Is there any >>mechanism to stop major international scams? > >Sort of, keeping in mind that this particular example is a minor scam, >not a major one. > >There are probably several dozen scam sites like that set up every >day. There are two interrelated problems -- one is that it's common >for the registrar to be in one country, the web site in a second, and >the mail servers sending promotional spam to be in yet a third through >50th. The other is that there's a great deal of finger pointing. Is >the responsible party the registrar, eNom in this case? The hosting >company where the web site is located, Servepath? The office-in-a-box >in Arizona that's listed as their address? All of the above? MAAWG >and the APWG have been working on setting up semi-formal contact >systems to get registrars and hosters to take down bogus sites, but >they can't just do a takedown on every random complaint, or else they >get grief like Godaddy for turning off legitimate sites who have >annoyed someone. > >This would be an excellent area for some governance guidelines. Too >bad we're too busy deciding what font the ballots should be printed >in. > >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 anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 6 08:37:46 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:37:46 +0200 Subject: Rights and internet governance, was RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN>, , <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4899B73A.21113.185D377A@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the appropriate institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues quite often. They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here in South Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the draft bill was badly not well conceived and very controversial. I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public awareness of the issue. It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. Personally, Rui, I would just ignore it. Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and internet governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say there is a lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what the implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work with on specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt this approach in our access work. I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this terrain enough, altough there are exceptions. Anriette Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 From: "Lisa Horner" To: , "Rui Correia" Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > in SA? > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Lisa ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 09:00:46 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:00:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Inclusion on the reformulation of the Pakistani IT Policy Message-ID: <701af9f70808060600p7ecf7ca2y8f172b38569f45b5@mail.gmail.com> Dear Friends and Community Members, Though I have been very quiet on this list, I have been advocating the process of ICT4D change with similar minded colleagues in Pakistan. We have had great success in this area and the Government of Pakistan has included our team on the working groups for the new IT Policy forumlation activties. More information on the IT Policy formulation activity in Pakistan can be regularly monitored on the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor, an initiative we established to encourage debate on ICT4D, Internet Governance, IPR, Human Rights etc. The community comprises of Civil Society, Academia, Researchers, Legislators, Government Heads of Departments, International and Local Media and so forth. The forum is open for anyone to join at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Riaz Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 6 09:19:17 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:19:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] New Rules for the Infobahn? References: <701af9f70808060600p7ecf7ca2y8f172b38569f45b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426102@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/08/whats-reasonable-approach-for-managing.html 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Aug 6 10:02:18 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:02:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states that > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is based > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? Lisa: As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. It's political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing its views, which of course are pretty stupid. I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. Let's be honest about this. Rui: > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom of expression," except when someone says something they feel threatened by or strongly disagree with. That kind of "support" is worthless. The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From that point on it's just a political competition to see who or what gets suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or criticizing Islam is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as racism is to you. Perhaps even more so. What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human rights." This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian, because at least you know what the dictators are up to. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 10:11:55 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:11:55 +0200 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <44CCBB16-0893-4AE1-A124-6948E1A50A1C@psg.com> Message-ID: On 6 Aug 2008, at 12:28, Parminder wrote: > > I think, some time I should try and get some Indians together and > start > speaking in local idioms on this list.... But everyone knows what will > happen. We will simply be ignored... actually i would look them up, you must know that, and would then have a wider context then i had to begin with. i would even be grateful. 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Aug 6 10:39:30 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:39:30 EDT Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Message-ID: Dear All -- I second Milton's motion. In its ruling on the Handyside case of 1976, the European Human Rights Court summed up the libertarian position quite well: "Freedom of expression ... is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas'that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society." Rony Koven ************** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 6 10:59:45 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:59:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] [process] President Carter Disseminates Atlanta Declaration to Advance Right to Information Worldwide In-Reply-To: <489994A1.27333.17D61155@anriette.apc.org> References: <6nlqtj$jd7i44@iron2-listserv.tops.gwu.edu>, <489994A1.27333.17D61155@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <9F3DA157-62C6-4D04-BFDA-F68E41B3B073@psg.com> On 6 Aug 2008, at 12:10, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > t might be a useful exercise to compile all the existing > agreements, declarations, etc. on the right to information > and do some analysis of them from the perspective of 'who', > 'when', 'why' and 'what happened'. I am wiling to set up a wiki project to try and create a library of existing agreements docs etc related to IG related issues This is coincident to the fact that I am finally going to be able to move the igcaucus.org server to a new more powerful machine and can then set up the wiki on that machine. i know i said this was going to happen a year ago or more ago, but the machine was just procured and is being set up now. i will be moving the web site and the dns pointers next week - and all things being equal, this should be invisible to anyone using the web adresse.. As far as the wiki goes, i think i will look for a couple of volunteer librarians to help me set this up and maintain it. This does not need to be an IGC activity, but i would like to hang the wiki under the igcaucus.org domain 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Aug 6 11:10:59 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:10:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C1D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> I agree that this might not be the best or most clear cut case to start working with. But basically what I'm trying to suggest is that we try and work out how to build on the 60 years of development of the international human rights system so that it is capable of addressing and providing guidance on relevant social and ethical issues that have arisen with the evolution of the internet. The system includes frameworks for balancing out tensions between competing rights and responsibilities - indeed in this particular case it could well be ruled that the site doesn't constitute sufficient 'incitement to cause harm' to justify action. Obviously the system isn't geared to rule on issues such as the Beijing scam - there are more appropriate arenas for that (although I think we'd all agree that they can't argue against regulation of their site on free expression grounds...). But it's exactly these kinds of grey issues around FoE that the human rights system is capable of dealing with, or at least should be. I just think that it's important that the human rights framework is used in the first place - to benefit from its 60 years of evolving to deal with such issues, to ensure that it is kept up to date with salient issues of our time and to ensure that norms underlying internet governance support human rights. Obviously dealing with cases in this way wouldn't work in regions that do not have human rights institutions that act in accordance with international standards. But South Africa has one of the most progressive rights regimes in the world, supported in turn by the African Charter and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa - the most progressive elaboration of FoE in any international agreement (depending of course on your interpretation of 'progressive'). Cases might of course have different outcomes in different countries according to different conceptions of rights, the most obvious being between the USA and other countries concerning acceptable limitations on FoE. But the human rights system has developed to cope with 'trans-boundary' differences of interpretation and opinion: it's by no means perfect but it hasn't collapsed because of them. Rather than avoiding using the human rights framework for fear that it will serve as a cover for restrictions on rights, we need to work with and develop the system to make sure that it's capable of addressing these issues. I'm keen to work out how we can do this. I'm thinking in terms wider than the specific issue of what constitutes acceptable limitations on FoE. But in this specific case, in short, the tools and systems are in place to determine whether Rui's site does constitute a violation of rights in South Africa, or whether, as you argue, a legitimate means of expression as they would be ruled to be in the USA (and as Rony pointed out, possibly elsewhere). The fact that they are in place is a positive thing that we can build on and work with. -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 06 August 2008 15:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner; Rui Correia Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states that > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is based > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? Lisa: As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. It's political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing its views, which of course are pretty stupid. I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. Let's be honest about this. Rui: > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom of expression," except when someone says something they feel threatened by or strongly disagree with. That kind of "support" is worthless. The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From that point on it's just a political competition to see who or what gets suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or criticizing Islam is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as racism is to you. Perhaps even more so. What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human rights." This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian, because at least you know what the dictators are up to. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 6 11:27:54 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:27:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C1D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN>, <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C1D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4899DF1A.8083.18F8FB74@anriette.apc.org> I strongly support Lisa's points. Not to disagree with Milton and Rony about content one does not like. I support their views. But I think we have to be able to talk about rights and not just make assumptions if we are going to break the deadlock we found in WSIS between rigths-friendly countries, mostly from the developed world, and the many developing country governments that are not very 'rights- friendly' and whose citizens tend not to prioritise rights. This really important e.g. here in South Africa where we have a good rights-framework on paper, but not in every-day practice. Often the same policy makers who will claim superiority because of South Africa's fantastic constitution will advocacy for censorship on the internet in the interests of child-protection. On the one hand this is because rights awareness and commitment to rights is pretty fragile here at the moment, but on the other hand it is often just because they don't understand what rights are and how the principles should underpin new areas of policy. Anriette PS - can't we change this subject line? Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:10:59 +0100 From: "Lisa Horner" To: Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > I agree that this might not be the best or most clear cut case to > start working with. But basically what I'm trying to suggest is that > we try and work out how to build on the 60 years of development of the > international human rights system so that it is capable of addressing > and providing guidance on relevant social and ethical issues that have > arisen with the evolution of the internet. The system includes > frameworks for balancing out tensions between competing rights and > responsibilities - indeed in this particular case it could well be > ruled that the site doesn't constitute sufficient 'incitement to cause > harm' to justify action. Obviously the system isn't geared to rule on > issues such as the Beijing scam - there are more appropriate arenas > for that (although I think we'd all agree that they can't argue > against regulation of their site on free expression grounds...). But > it's exactly these kinds of grey issues around FoE that the human > rights system is capable of dealing with, or at least should be. > > I just think that it's important that the human rights framework is > used in the first place - to benefit from its 60 years of evolving to > deal with such issues, to ensure that it is kept up to date with > salient issues of our time and to ensure that norms underlying > internet governance support human rights. Obviously dealing with > cases in this way wouldn't work in regions that do not have human > rights institutions that act in accordance with international > standards. But South Africa has one of the most progressive rights > regimes in the world, supported in turn by the African Charter and the > Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa - the > most progressive elaboration of FoE in any international agreement > (depending of course on your interpretation of 'progressive'). Cases > might of course have different outcomes in different countries > according to different conceptions of rights, the most obvious being > between the USA and other countries concerning acceptable limitations > on FoE. But the human rights system has developed to cope with > 'trans-boundary' differences of interpretation and opinion: it's by no > means perfect but it hasn't collapsed because of them. > > Rather than avoiding using the human rights framework for fear that it > will serve as a cover for restrictions on rights, we need to work with > and develop the system to make sure that it's capable of addressing > these issues. I'm keen to work out how we can do this. > > I'm thinking in terms wider than the specific issue of what > constitutes acceptable limitations on FoE. But in this specific case, > in short, the tools and systems are in place to determine whether > Rui's site does constitute a violation of rights in South Africa, or > whether, as you argue, a legitimate means of expression as they would > be ruled to be in the USA (and as Rony pointed out, possibly > elsewhere). The fact that they are in place is a positive thing that > we can build on and work with. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 August 2008 15:02 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner; Rui Correia > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket > scam] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with > > the South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights > > states > that > > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is > based > > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to > > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? > > Lisa: > As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. > It's political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing > its views, which of course are pretty stupid. > > I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress > expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just > that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. > > Let's be honest about this. > > Rui: > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like > > any other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, > > such > > How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and > everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom > of expression," except when someone says something they feel > threatened by or strongly disagree with. > > That kind of "support" is worthless. > > The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with > what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From > that point on it's just a political competition to see who or what > gets suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this > and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or > Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or > criticizing Islam is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as > racism is to you. Perhaps even more so. > > What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of > "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand > the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. > > At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress > speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human > rights." This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear > authoritarian, because at least you know what the dictators are up to. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: > 8/3/2008 1:00 PM > > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Wed Aug 6 12:23:45 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:23:45 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <34BFF2CD-3B48-4AC7-A880-93D4E0D5E4F6@internet.law.pro> On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > derides > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or > you deny > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > one is the > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not JL.) Let's focus on the better options. -- 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 maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 12:35:39 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:35:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research Message-ID: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> dear lisa and all Lisa wrote: > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in the fall. It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication best max On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the > appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues > quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here > in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the > draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public > awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. > Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and > internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say > there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what > the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work > with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC > tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this > terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing > ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- 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 Aug 6 14:27:47 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <34BFF2CD-3B48-4AC7-A880-93D4E0D5E4F6@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <019701c8f7f2$207ba6e0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Without arguing the merits of the case, surely the question is who sets the criteria of what is "the best among several bad options"... The folks who set the criteria have the opportunity to determine the outcome of the choice and that's where issues of power, grandfathered entitlements and so on come in. Some (dare I say, "lesser breeds without the law") might argue for example, that "unilateral control by the U.S." (or any single national or other interest group) is by definition the worst possible option. MG -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] Sent: August 6, 2008 9:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > derides those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does > he or > you deny > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > one is the > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not JL.) Let's focus on the better options. -- 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 16:19:32 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:19:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton For starters, I am a "he" and not a "she". Then, I would appreciate if you would debate the issue as academically or otherwise as possible, without according yourself the right to presume to know me, that you know things about me and impute unto me qualities that you have decided I have, based on this email discussion. If you want to compare yourself to the Chinese, please go ahead, but kindly leave everyone else on the list off your ad hominem reasoning. I wrote from the premises that this kind of content is ILLEGAL and therefore a CRIME, just like child pornography. If it is not, then so be it. As for your comments about "appropriation of human rights terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression", perhaps you might consider an apology to the list. I don't know who you might be referring to, but perhas you might want to clarify that, as - as it stands - it could refer to me, any other who responded on this email, the Chinese, who knows who else. Indeed bizarre and disturbing. Best regards, Rui On 06/08/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > that > > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is > based > > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to > > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? > > > Lisa: > As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. It's > political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing its > views, which of course are pretty stupid. > > I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress > expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just > that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. > > Let's be honest about this. > > Rui: > > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such > > > How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and > everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom > of expression," except when someone says something they feel threatened > by or strongly disagree with. > > That kind of "support" is worthless. > > The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with > what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From that > point on it's just a political competition to see who or what gets > suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this and the > attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan > Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or criticizing Islam > is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as racism is to you. > Perhaps even more so. > > What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human > rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the > moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. > > At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress > speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human rights." > This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian, > because at least you know what the dictators are up to. > > -- ________________________________________________ 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:36:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:36:23 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <3269BA0E-1A06-4671-88A3-A913F26E1764@psg.com> <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> <48980CD0.78CCB7C8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <4898E3F7.59E64AB8@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > McTim and all, > > > > I can't see where Parminder said anything abusive. Sure he > > may disagree with the "Messenger", even strongly, but that > > hardly is any form af abuse. Just my two cents... > > > > McTim if DOC/NTIA released the Roots management, and > > therefore ICANN/IANA, whom do you suggest pick up that > > oversight, specifically? > > Well the root is separate from IANA contract, so there are 2 issues of > oversight, but I digress. ICANN is overseen by it's Board, I see no > need of any other "oversight". Not really, the managment of the Root servers is an IANA technical function directed by ICANN whom is overseen by DOC/NTIA, so the equivication you indicate, all be it stated properly, doesn't reflect the current and now long standing reality. > > > Or should ICANN operate without > > any government or other authoritative oversight? > > Works for me. Never going to fly, sorry. ICANN's Bod has clearly shown it has particular prefrences, has little interest in users, if any, and has not been honest, transparent, or accountable to any reasonably recognized standard. > > > Obama, > > should he become the Pres., wants an Internet Czar, and > > will likely get it. > > > > And BTW, McTim, I been involved sense long before ICANN > > was even in anyone's imagination, and was present when ICANN > > was formulated. > > > > You see McTim, anyone can criticize DOC/NTIA from the outside, > > and I as well have done so on more than one occasion. But without > > recommending an alternative, one looses ones viability as to what should > > be done. > > I have recommended on several occasions my solution given above. Yes, and it remains insufficient, an non-starter, and represents dangerous judgment. I am sure that if Obama is elected, or if McCain is elected, such as solution will not be given serious consideration. > > > What ICANN has on several occasions indicated indirectly > > is that it wants to be cut free of oversight all together and move to > > Geneva. > > ?? I've never seen this mentioned by ICANN. Well it's been mentioned many times. > > > For this reason, amongst many others, DOC/NTIA is going > > to be very reluctant in releasing them from their contractual agreement. > > Very reluctant, altho not for that reason. Again sorry, you are mistaken to a degree. Nebulus international corporations are not favorable to the USG, and many other national governments. > > > > > > Secondly, as ICANN has yet to fulfill it's mandate in the MOU, release > > would be unwise and certainly premature. > > At the moment, that's probably right. What I said is exactly right! Yet for ICANN to clearly and adaquately to the stakeholder community that it shall mend it's ways and comply, the USG/DOC/NTIA and congress will be VERY reluctant to release them from their contractual obligation. And the USG/DOC/NTIA would be, and currently ARE quite correct in that insistance. > > > When ICANN fully and > > without complication or equivocation recognizes in it's structure that > > the user is king, as it were, they seriously need adult or something > > approaching adult supervision. The ITU, nor any other UN organ > > can adequately provide for that oversight, given their controversial > > long history. > > Agreed. Good, glad you agree. Yet you offer no realistic alternitive that would be based in good judgment. Not very helpful. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:38:40 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:38:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <0ac501c8f790$bfcd4030$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4898E47F.20EDA737@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Your suggestions pose a clear and present danger to all stakeholders. Such as suggestion is exactly one of DOC/NTIA's realistic concerns, and rightly so. Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > > > > 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... > > > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > > could > > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. Then > > maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with me as > > to > > whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in 9/09. > > > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and > they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is for > ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation > structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no > clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. > > (you might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.....) > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:44:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4898E5D2.85FC9A40@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Yes this is an alternative, but one that currently and sense ICANN's conception, one that puts the insane in charge of the asylum. Not a very palatable or viable alternative. Perhaps when users hold the majority of ICANN's Bod seats, this alternative will become much more viable. But the GNSO structure will need drastic changes to reflect such. Currently, and under the most recent proposed GNSO structure revision, that is not the case. I and most users or users-domain name holders are neither adequately represented on ICANN's Bod, nor do same approve of the IPC's behavior and influence on the ICANN Bod. Ian Peter wrote: > Or alternatively, as McTim suggests, no authorisation structure. > > Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals to me > as something that might get traction at both ends and we could support. > > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: 06 August 2008 16:51 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' > > Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > > > could > > > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > > > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. > > Then > > > maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with me > > as > > > to > > > whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in 9/09. > > > > > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and > > they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is > > for > > ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation > > structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no > > clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. > > > > (you might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.....) > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > > 6:03 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:46:48 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:46:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: Message-ID: <4898E668.8BF798A1@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, Certainly change is needed. That change must come from within ICANN or directed more forcably by DOC/NTIA. As of this time, neither seem to be willing to make the clearly necessary changes. Ergo, the status quo remains. William Drake wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 8/6/08 8:50 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > The assumption here is that a compelling argument to DOC is advanced and > > they suddenly change their mind. That might work. Another possibility is for > > ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation > > structure with the UN, create another A root, and then the emperor has no > > clothes. Not hard to do if the will exists and ICANN really wants change. > > I can assure you I'm not assuming that a persuasive case will necessarily > lead to change. I'm only saying that in the absence of a persuasive case > there will be no change; necessary > sufficient condition. Why would > government officials take a (domestically) politically risky and entirely > discretionary decision if nobody is asking them to do it, in a manner that's > salient? > > Believe it or not, ideas and argumentation, good or horrific, really do > matter in DC; just ask a neocon. But when all the thinking and talking are > coming from one side, the choice of path to take is literally no contest. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:48:48 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:48:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Restart Internet References: <48995803.3060706@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84260ED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4898E6DF.8955ED66@ix.netcom.com> Wolfgang and all, Been underway sense 2003. Nothing new here... Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/87302_geni_fund_to_rebuild_internet/ > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:53:27 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:53:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <4898E7F7.3C5BD326@ix.netcom.com> Rui and all, I fully agree. So what is your problem? Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Milton, Ian Peter, Jeffrey and others > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such > as on child pornography incitement to violence etc, which are > considered crimes in most legislatins. Racism too is consided a crime > in many legislations. > > The site I am referring too is a discussion forum with the same name > as a right wing white para-political organisation. It advocates > independence for the Afrikaner and dispalys the flags of the old Boere > republics and the old South African flag as well as other symbols of > Afrikaner nationalism. > > The tenor of the discussions is extremely racist, referring to blacks > as "kaffirs" and "baboons"; containg commenst to the effect that > Botswana's economy flourishes only thanks to the whites; suggesting > that "they" to do not try "here" (South Africa) what "they" did in > "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) etc. > > That is only on the page on which I happened to land during a google search. > > On 05/08/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Ian, Rui, and all, > > > > Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do > > is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more > > traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the > > other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, > > than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, > > as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. > > > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Hi Rui, > > > > > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > > > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > > > > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > > > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > > > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > > > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > > > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > > > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > > > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > > > described above apply. > > > > > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > > > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > > > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > > > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > > > only act if this is a police matter? > > > > > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > > > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > > > > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > > > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > > > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > > > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > > > Internet Ombudsman? > > > > > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > > > parallel issue. > > > > > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:55:06 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:55:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4897C3BC.E526B25A@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C03@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4898E85A.96C5012A@ix.netcom.com> Lisa and all, Interesting it doesn't extend to age or condition of servitude. Lisa Horner wrote: > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Lisa > > ___________________________________________________________ > Lisa Horner > Head of Research and Policy Unit > Global Partners and Associates > 4th Floor Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1AH > Office: + 44 207 861 3960 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 > lisa at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: 06 August 2008 11:15 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > Dear Milton, Ian Peter, Jeffrey and others > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such > as on child pornography incitement to violence etc, which are > considered crimes in most legislatins. Racism too is consided a crime > in many legislations. > > The site I am referring too is a discussion forum with the same name > as a right wing white para-political organisation. It advocates > independence for the Afrikaner and dispalys the flags of the old Boere > republics and the old South African flag as well as other symbols of > Afrikaner nationalism. > > The tenor of the discussions is extremely racist, referring to blacks > as "kaffirs" and "baboons"; containg commenst to the effect that > Botswana's economy flourishes only thanks to the whites; suggesting > that "they" to do not try "here" (South Africa) what "they" did in > "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) etc. > > That is only on the page on which I happened to land during a google search. > > On 05/08/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Ian, Rui, and all, > > > > Not a difficult problem to deal with at all. All Rui needs to do > > is block the Domain Name and he shall not recieve any more > > traffic from that DN. Problen solved. Now that said, it on the > > other had he is attempting to seek broad censor of that DN, > > than yes, contacting his countries authorities might be in order, > > as long as he has good reason to seek such a censor. > > > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Hi Rui, > > > > > > Not sure I am best to answer, but as you addressed this to me I'll attempt a > > > reply and invite others closer to this to also pass on information. > > > > > > Sounds like this is not a police matter. If it was breaking a law in your > > > country, that's a good place to start. If so, then they might be able to do > > > something in taking a site down if the site happens to have an owner, a > > > registry, a registrar, a server, and other pertinent attributes all located > > > in South Africa. (please those more knowledgeable here correct me if I am > > > wrong). Similarly, if there is a Human Rights Commissioner or equivalent in > > > the country concerned, they might be able to act if conditions as broadly > > > described above apply. > > > > > > In this case we seem to be dealing with bad taste however. What top level > > > domain (or cctld) is involved? What is their policy (if they have one?) Is > > > the required action to remove the site, fix the offending content, issue a > > > warning? Would they undertake to do any of these or would they say we can > > > only act if this is a police matter? > > > > > > And in this case, would those writing defend this as their right to free > > > speech, in which case additional parameters might come into play? > > > > > > I don't think the answer is easy currently and matters that run close to > > > censorship issues will never be easy. However, do we need an equivalent of > > > UDRP (ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) to deal with > > > this? A bit of industry self regulation? Code of Content guidelines? Or an > > > Internet Ombudsman? > > > > > > It's a difficult area as far as I can see. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > > > > Sent: 06 August 2008 05:56 > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > > Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > > > > Hi Ian Peter > > > > > > > > Taking it up from your point about take-downs not being automatic > > > > without validation, perhaps you or others can shed some light on a > > > > parallel issue. > > > > > > > > In the past few days, I've come across two racist websites, full of > > > > hate speech, but not directly inciting racial hatred. > > > > > > > > Any idea where I can report these sites? Someone at international > > > > level or at national level in South Africa? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 19:58:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:58:24 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: Message-ID: <4898E920.CAF196FB@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, And I, along with most Americans as well as other nations of the world disagree with your opinion and the JPA review made clear. ICANN, especially it's Bod, GNSO, and ASO are clearly in dire need of Adult supervision to include DOC/NTIA. William Drake wrote: > Parminder, > > I clearly was referring to John’s point that > > >The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they > >will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their > >authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. > >This policy has never changed, and their recent note > >contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > >attention. > > That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message. I don’t happen > to agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ’s ‘adult supervision,’ gave no > indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary > on this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of > you. Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order > to score cheap rhetorical points. > > I also noted that it’s not appropriate for the coordinator to be > attacking people and hurling around ideological labels. I stand by > that, you are not just any subscriber to the list, you’re the caucus > coordinator so belligerent fight picking is unhelpful. > > BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing ‘adult > supervision,’ they are talking about ICANN---the board, et > al---needing oversight. It may not be the form of oversight you or I > favor, but that’s a legitimate and often expressed view that can be > disputed on the merits without dipping into the gutter. In contrast, > I didn’t hear him saying that other countries are juvenile, so > characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist seems a > tad misplaced. Sorry to hear it brings blood to your head, > particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. Or we could > agree to disagree and move on to something more useful. > > Bill > > > On 8/6/08 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > >can only help this caucus come to an informed > > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal > attacks (don't > > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the > message). (Mctim) > > McTim (and Bill) > > So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying > the existing > situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - > saying, I > "seriously distorted what was actually said") > > Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for > anyone to check > integrity of these quotes to the full text) > > "....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" > (John) > > I read in the above a > clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that > the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control > the technical body > that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the > crucial global > resource, the Internet. > > > "There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside > and outside of > ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float > free, but it > ain't going to happen." (John) > > "So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance > processes, but > don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." > (John) > > The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the > effort of all > those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. > Such derision > does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given > 'unchangeable' reality, it > comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. > > And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the > need for US's > 'adult supervision' when Milton wrote > > >Wow, John, > >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, > but I am > >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and > biased apologia > >for US control. (Milton) > > John replied with > > >if you don't find their need for adult supervision > egregiously obvious, I > >doubt I can explain it. > > So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of > other countries > combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly > partronising and > (I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. > > You guys may be immune to such derogatory political > allusions, but I am not. > And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, > especially among > people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings > a bit of blood > to ones head. > > Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - > "neo-imperialist", and whether > it was appropriate. > > The first entry on Google search has this to say > "Neo-imperialism refers to > the dominance of some nations over others by means of > unequal conditions of > economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a > very general way to > view many of the new issues that are developing and will > develop as our > world grows smaller due to more effective communication and > contact between > foreign nations." > > If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is > neo-imperialism, > sitting over the central and one of the most important > resources of the > world - the Internet - and plainly refusing to be > democratic and > participative with the global community in its governance is > extreme > neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political > advantages, does > any one doubt that). > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one > country, and derides > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does > he or you deny > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially > when one is the > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the > meaning of the > term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the > sociology > dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not > name-calling, in that > socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current > socio-political description of > normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then > one has to > defend against it on facts, and not mere > social-inappropriateness. > > I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a > social activist, > to use the term again in similar circumstances. > > And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for > John and > corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and > political choice. No > problems for me, good luck. > > And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate > behavior on the list > what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the > nature of > 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, > you said it > first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on > the list. > > (Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the > list at various > times in different exchanges with members so that we can > decide what is > appropriate and what not.) > > So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and > superiority. This is > all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our > political > proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever > position you want > to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 20:05:42 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:05:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [ga] More Registrar Malfeasance Reported References: <444690.28282.qm@web52209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4898EAD6.83ACB402@ix.netcom.com> Danny and all, Thank you again for your diligance here. This again demonstrates why ICANN and especially the GNSO, and ICANN registrars need DOC/NTIA as well as other supervision. Danny Younger wrote: > > KnujOn has found at least 19 rogue pharmacy domains, sponsored through DIRECT INFORMATION PVT LTD D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM (PDR) back in operation with the same content and at the same nameserver after being reported to ICANN by the Registrar as “suspended.” The nameserver is also sponsored by PDR and is itself an unlicensed pharmacy site. This is an example of a practice we have seen all too frequently where Internet companies will remove sites temporarily for reported policy violations only to restore them shortly afterwards. DIRECT INFO/PDR was rated the 9th Worst Registrar by KnujOn in terms of sponsoring spam sites previously. Clearly the consumer is not being protected by the current system. Full report here: http://www.knujon.com/news.html#08052008 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 20:08:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:08:28 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080806093712.481E7A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> <34BFF2CD-3B48-4AC7-A880-93D4E0D5E4F6@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <4898EB7B.22FA9C9E@ix.netcom.com> Bret and all, The thing you seem to forget is that DOC/NTIA has a GAC, which includes many different countries representation. Bret Fausett wrote: > On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > > derides > > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or > > you deny > > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > > one is the > > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). > > Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to > support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad > options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to > retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not > JL.) Let's focus on the better options. > > -- 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 20:31:49 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:31:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C1D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <0c2401c8f824$fdfc7170$8b00a8c0@IAN> Lisa makes a very strong case for human rights experience and structures to underpin policy development in this area. Certainly I agree with this as a logical way to proceed. But let's look at a hypothetical (but fairly typical) situation. Let's call the site racist.ru. The registry is in Russia. The owner is a British citizen. The site is about South African race issues and the participants are from many countries. The servers are located in Texas USA because that's a nice cheap place to host sites. The hypothetical site clearly offends SA human rights legislation. However what action if any could be taken in this case? The registry may refuse to act because Russian law is not involved. The hosting provider may only respect a subpoena from a US court. The site owner is on extended holidays in the Bahamas and is not answering emails. The South African authorities have plenty else to think about and this becomes just too hard. And secondly is this an internet governance issue at all? It's easy to take the line that, like in phishing scams, its not an Internet governance issue at all but just a problem with all our institutions adapting to the realities of the internet era. Human rights is human rights, fraud is fraud, law is law, whatever the communication media involved is, let everyone get their house in order and the Internet remains neutral to all of that and has no responsibilities at all except to respond as individual entities to legal requirements presented to them in their own national jurisdiction only. It's an enticing argument in line with calls for minimalist Internet governance. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > Sent: 07 August 2008 01:11 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > I agree that this might not be the best or most clear cut case to start > working with. But basically what I'm trying to suggest is that we try > and work out how to build on the 60 years of development of the > international human rights system so that it is capable of addressing > and providing guidance on relevant social and ethical issues that have > arisen with the evolution of the internet. The system includes > frameworks for balancing out tensions between competing rights and > responsibilities - indeed in this particular case it could well be ruled > that the site doesn't constitute sufficient 'incitement to cause harm' > to justify action. Obviously the system isn't geared to rule on issues > such as the Beijing scam - there are more appropriate arenas for that > (although I think we'd all agree that they can't argue against > regulation of their site on free expression grounds...). But it's > exactly these kinds of grey issues around FoE that the human rights > system is capable of dealing with, or at least should be. > > I just think that it's important that the human rights framework is used > in the first place - to benefit from its 60 years of evolving to deal > with such issues, to ensure that it is kept up to date with salient > issues of our time and to ensure that norms underlying internet > governance support human rights. Obviously dealing with cases in this > way wouldn't work in regions that do not have human rights institutions > that act in accordance with international standards. But South Africa > has one of the most progressive rights regimes in the world, supported > in turn by the African Charter and the Declaration of Principles on > Freedom of Expression in Africa - the most progressive elaboration of > FoE in any international agreement (depending of course on your > interpretation of 'progressive'). Cases might of course have different > outcomes in different countries according to different conceptions of > rights, the most obvious being between the USA and other countries > concerning acceptable limitations on FoE. But the human rights system > has developed to cope with 'trans-boundary' differences of > interpretation and opinion: it's by no means perfect but it hasn't > collapsed because of them. > > Rather than avoiding using the human rights framework for fear that it > will serve as a cover for restrictions on rights, we need to work with > and develop the system to make sure that it's capable of addressing > these issues. I'm keen to work out how we can do this. > > I'm thinking in terms wider than the specific issue of what constitutes > acceptable limitations on FoE. But in this specific case, in short, the > tools and systems are in place to determine whether Rui's site does > constitute a violation of rights in South Africa, or whether, as you > argue, a legitimate means of expression as they would be ruled to be in > the USA (and as Rony pointed out, possibly elsewhere). The fact that > they are in place is a positive thing that we can build on and work > with. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 August 2008 15:02 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner; Rui Correia > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > that > > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is > based > > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to > > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? > > Lisa: > As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. It's > political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing its > views, which of course are pretty stupid. > > I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress > expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just > that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. > > Let's be honest about this. > > Rui: > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such > > How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and > everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom > of expression," except when someone says something they feel threatened > by or strongly disagree with. > > That kind of "support" is worthless. > > The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with > what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From that > point on it's just a political competition to see who or what gets > suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this and the > attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan > Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or criticizing Islam > is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as racism is to you. > Perhaps even more so. > > What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human > rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the > moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. > > At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress > speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human rights." > This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian, > because at least you know what the dictators are up to. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > 6:03 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ginger at paque.net Wed Aug 6 20:59:14 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:29:14 -0430 Subject: [governance] Deadline extended until 10 August: Diplo Internet Governance Course for India - Call for Applications Message-ID: <489a4923.16048e0a.62ef.ffffc42e@mx.google.com> A reminder on this with a note that the application deadline has been extended to 10 August - please distribute among your Indian contacts. Thanx! Vlada Call for Applications Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme for India 2008 DiploFoundation and the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) are currently accepting applications for the Online Capacity Building Training in Internet Governance for India. This online training is designed to improve Internet Governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for participants. The training also facilitates community-building among individuals with different backgrounds. The Programme The programme offers places for 30 young professionals in India from diverse stakeholder backgrounds in IG-related fields. The programme will start on 1 September 2008, and will last for 10 weeks. The training is conducted entirely online and in English. Participation takes place through an online learning platform enabling a variety of interactive learning and communication tools and encouraging sharing of knowledge and experiences. Participants are divided in two groups of 15 participants, each, under the guidance of certified Diplo online tutors and with support from trained professionals from the region. The ten most successful participants will be awarded a Policy Fellowship from NIXI. The fellowship from will facilitate participation at the Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, December 2008, by sponsoring five days of bed and breakfast, and a stipend of ten thousand rupees to cover travel and other costs. The selected participants may present findings of their research at some parallel events at the IGF. Timeline * 10 July - call for applicants * 10 August - application deadline * 15 August - selection results * 1 September - start of the course * 15 November - final evaluation Fee While the course is subsidized by NIXI and DiploFoundation, there is a nominal fee of Rupees 1000 per participant (to be paid after the selection). Deadline The deadline for applications is 10 August 2008, by midnight UTC/GMT. How to Apply For further information and to apply, please visit the IG website. Do not hesitate to contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 21454 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4629 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 Aug 6 21:03:38 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:33:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] Last Call For Applications: Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme for INDIA 2008 (Plain Text email) Message-ID: <489a4a2a.1e078e0a.6839.587a@mx.google.com> Hello everybody: Just a reminder, with a note that the Deadline has been extended until August 10th. We have an exciting new program starting up for IG Capacity Building in India. Please help us get this information to anyone who might be interested. Direct Link: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/IGCBP/display.asp?Topic=Call-India News Article: http://www.diplomacy.edu/DiploNews/display.asp?Topic=Issue123 Thanks and saludos, Ginger DIPLO FOUNDATION INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND POLICY Call for Applications Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme for INDIA 2008 DiploFoundation (http://www.diplomacy.edu) and the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) (http://www.nixi.in/) are currently accepting applications for the Online Capacity Building Training in Internet Governance for India. This online training is designed to improve Internet Governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for participants. The training also facilitates community-building among individuals with different backgrounds. The Programme The programme offers places for 30 young professionals in India from diverse stakeholder backgrounds in IG-related fields. The programme will start on 1 September 2008, and will last for 10 weeks. The training is conducted entirely online and in English. Participation takes place through an online learning platform enabling a variety of interactive learning and communication tools and encouraging sharing of knowledge and experiences. Participants are divided in two groups of 15 participants, each, under the guidance of certified Diplo online tutors and with support from trained professionals from the region. The ten most successful participants will be awarded a Policy Fellowship from NIXI. The fellowship from will facilitate participation at the Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, December 2008, by sponsoring five days of bed and breakfast, and a stipend of ten thousand rupees to cover travel and other costs. The selected participants may present findings of their research at some parallel events at the IGF. Timeline § 10 July - call for applicants § 5 August - application deadline § 15 August - selection results § 1 September - start of the course § 15 November - final evaluation Fee While the course is subsidized by NIXI and DiploFoundation, there is a nominal fee of Rupees 1000 (Approx. USD 25) per participant (to be paid after the selection). Deadline The deadline for applications is 5 August 2008, by midnight UTC/GMT. How to Apply For further information and to apply, please visit the DiploFoundation IG website at http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/IGCBP/display.asp?Topic=Call-India . Do not hesitate to contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 23:02:39 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:02:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] References: <0c2401c8f824$fdfc7170$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4899144A.1210263@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, If you have a problem with the site, racist.ru, perhaps you should direct your problem, which BTW I agree with, to the DOJ humans rights division. Ian Peter wrote: > Lisa makes a very strong case for human rights experience and structures to > underpin policy development in this area. Certainly I agree with this as a > logical way to proceed. > > But let's look at a hypothetical (but fairly typical) situation. Let's call > the site racist.ru. The registry is in Russia. The owner is a British > citizen. The site is about South African race issues and the participants > are from many countries. The servers are located in Texas USA because that's > a nice cheap place to host sites. > > The hypothetical site clearly offends SA human rights legislation. However > what action if any could be taken in this case? > > The registry may refuse to act because Russian law is not involved. The > hosting provider may only respect a subpoena from a US court. The site owner > is on extended holidays in the Bahamas and is not answering emails. The > South African authorities have plenty else to think about and this becomes > just too hard. > > And secondly is this an internet governance issue at all? It's easy to take > the line that, like in phishing scams, its not an Internet governance issue > at all but just a problem with all our institutions adapting to the > realities of the internet era. Human rights is human rights, fraud is fraud, > law is law, whatever the communication media involved is, let everyone get > their house in order and the Internet remains neutral to all of that and has > no responsibilities at all except to respond as individual entities to legal > requirements presented to them in their own national jurisdiction only. It's > an enticing argument in line with calls for minimalist Internet governance. > > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > Sent: 07 August 2008 01:11 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > I agree that this might not be the best or most clear cut case to start > > working with. But basically what I'm trying to suggest is that we try > > and work out how to build on the 60 years of development of the > > international human rights system so that it is capable of addressing > > and providing guidance on relevant social and ethical issues that have > > arisen with the evolution of the internet. The system includes > > frameworks for balancing out tensions between competing rights and > > responsibilities - indeed in this particular case it could well be ruled > > that the site doesn't constitute sufficient 'incitement to cause harm' > > to justify action. Obviously the system isn't geared to rule on issues > > such as the Beijing scam - there are more appropriate arenas for that > > (although I think we'd all agree that they can't argue against > > regulation of their site on free expression grounds...). But it's > > exactly these kinds of grey issues around FoE that the human rights > > system is capable of dealing with, or at least should be. > > > > I just think that it's important that the human rights framework is used > > in the first place - to benefit from its 60 years of evolving to deal > > with such issues, to ensure that it is kept up to date with salient > > issues of our time and to ensure that norms underlying internet > > governance support human rights. Obviously dealing with cases in this > > way wouldn't work in regions that do not have human rights institutions > > that act in accordance with international standards. But South Africa > > has one of the most progressive rights regimes in the world, supported > > in turn by the African Charter and the Declaration of Principles on > > Freedom of Expression in Africa - the most progressive elaboration of > > FoE in any international agreement (depending of course on your > > interpretation of 'progressive'). Cases might of course have different > > outcomes in different countries according to different conceptions of > > rights, the most obvious being between the USA and other countries > > concerning acceptable limitations on FoE. But the human rights system > > has developed to cope with 'trans-boundary' differences of > > interpretation and opinion: it's by no means perfect but it hasn't > > collapsed because of them. > > > > Rather than avoiding using the human rights framework for fear that it > > will serve as a cover for restrictions on rights, we need to work with > > and develop the system to make sure that it's capable of addressing > > these issues. I'm keen to work out how we can do this. > > > > I'm thinking in terms wider than the specific issue of what constitutes > > acceptable limitations on FoE. But in this specific case, in short, the > > tools and systems are in place to determine whether Rui's site does > > constitute a violation of rights in South Africa, or whether, as you > > argue, a legitimate means of expression as they would be ruled to be in > > the USA (and as Rony pointed out, possibly elsewhere). The fact that > > they are in place is a positive thing that we can build on and work > > with. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: 06 August 2008 15:02 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner; Rui Correia > > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > > > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > that > > > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is > > based > > > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > > incitement to > > > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA? > > > > Lisa: > > As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm. It's > > political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing its > > views, which of course are pretty stupid. > > > > I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress > > expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just > > that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. > > > > Let's be honest about this. > > > > Rui: > > > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like any > > > other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations, such > > > > How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and > > everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom > > of expression," except when someone says something they feel threatened > > by or strongly disagree with. > > > > That kind of "support" is worthless. > > > > The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with > > what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From that > > point on it's just a political competition to see who or what gets > > suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this and the > > attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan > > Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or criticizing Islam > > is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as racism is to you. > > Perhaps even more so. > > > > What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human > > rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the > > moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. > > > > At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress > > speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human rights." > > This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian, > > because at least you know what the dictators are up to. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > > 6:03 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 5 23:10:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:10:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] New Rules for the Infobahn? References: <701af9f70808060600p7ecf7ca2y8f172b38569f45b5@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426102@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48991641.1407972D@ix.netcom.com> Wolfgang and all, There will be many more new or revised rules in the future, of that I am quite sure. Which new rules that address the needs and desires of stakeholders/users is where the rubber meets the road. With ICANN they choose or prefer a top down approach as to how and whom makes those rules irrespective of government(s). That is a paradigm that will not and cannot stand. Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/08/whats-reasonable-approach-for-managing.html > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 21:49:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:49:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: <20080805150438.4FE8DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF55@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > I agree with McTim that this name calling is inappropriate, particularly > coming from our coordinator, and that it is seriously distorts what was > actually said. Post-JPA has been discussed here before and a number of While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > 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 > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > could > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. Then That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from this crowd. We can debate more radical independence measures later, after a few post-JPA years and its review by the IGF.... > Then maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet with > me as to whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do something in Well, at least I picked the primary winner correctly. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 21:58:56 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:58:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights {was: Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam]) In-Reply-To: <4899DF1A.8083.18F8FB74@anriette.apc.org> References: <0a8501c8f758$71951ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN>, <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF1A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C1D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4899DF1A.8083.18F8FB74@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF56@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I respect very much Lisa's attempt to invoke the international human rights system, and in fact I _used_ to agree with her perspective on that until the last year or so. It is certainly a discussion worth having, and I guess the Internet Bill of Rights folks, among others, are having it. And I _totally_ support and agree with Anriette, when she says: > -----Original Message----- > hand it is often just because they don't > understand what rights are and how the > principles should underpin new areas of policy. The problem I have now is that after exposure to the international human rights system and the way it is actually applied I find the term "rights" has become so overextended and overused that the term has very little value to someone who has specific free expression and civil liberties protections in mind. As Anriette suggests, part of the problem is just a lack of understanding of how to apply the term, but the more fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on a specific philosophical foundation for rights, we routinely conflate collective and individual rights, we proliferate rights that are inconsistent with each other, we combine positive and negative rights, etc., etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 6 23:11:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:41:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election Message-ID: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All The voting for a new co-coordinator of IGC to replace Vittorio will take place through a web based system between 10th and 17th August. The result will be announced on the 19th. The two candidates are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, whom I thank for volunteering for this important organizational responsibility. The voting will be conducted by me, as directed by the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), with the help of Derrick Cogburn of Syracuse University who has offered the software he has earlier used for GigaNet elections, and also to administer the voting process. Each person subscribed to the governance list as on June 7th 2008 ( i.e. two months prior to the start of the election process) will be sent an email with information on the voting process, conditions etc along with a unique web-link that takes the person to a secure website. The list subscriber will then be given the option to affirm/ accept membership of the caucus by subscribing to the charter (as per the charter's provisions for the voting process). On such positive affirmation, the person will be taken to the ballot page where the vote can be cast by ticking against one of the two candidates. A 'none of the above' option will also be available. A vote once cast cannot be changed. While we strongly encourage everyone to vote as a sign of ones active engagement with the caucus, voting is not compulsory for retaining caucus membership, i.e. if one is already on the caucus members list ( see www.igcaucus.org/members-080721.html ). However, it is important to note that, as per the charter's provisions on charter amendments, one has to have voted in the previous election to be able to vote at any charter amendment process. Therefore, to have voting rights in any charter amendment process (but not for any other voting process) that may come before the next election, one HAS to vote in this election. As per the charter, all voting will be open, unless specifically declared to be secret, for which reason(s) have to be stated. I declare that the present voting will be secret. The reason for this is that the process involves individuals making a choice between two colleague individuals and that has the likelihood of leaving an avoidable trace on inter-personal relationships in the group. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no special imperatives of transparency and openness, in this case, which will be met by an open vote. The voting process is completely anonymous, no names are associated with the voting. The IP address is captured and stored in a database, but is not accessed by the voting process administrator (Derrick). Derrick, but not I, will be able to see the aggregated results as they come in, However, to repeat, no one will be able to see or know any voter's specific voting choice. Derrick will technically be able to access information on whether anyone has cast one's vote or not. This information will however not actually be accessed during the process At the end of the process, on the 19th, along with the result, a list of voters will be published. Those among them who are not currently on the members' list will be added to the standing list since during the process of voting they would have accepted membership by subscribing to the charter. The elected co-coordinator will take charge immediately on the announcement of the result, and Vittorio will cease to be a co-coordinator. I also declare that I have satisfied myself about the security and trustworthiness of the voting process, to the levels that in my understanding are required and adequate for the current purpose. The email creating a voters account will be sent out on 10th August and the voting will close at midnight - GMT - of 17th - 18th August. If needed, I will add more information to the above by tomorrow. Meanwhile, clarifications are welcome. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 7 00:33:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:03:09 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <34BFF2CD-3B48-4AC7-A880-93D4E0D5E4F6@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <20080807043331.683DAE2503@smtp3.electricembers.net> > On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > > derides > > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or > > you deny > > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > > one is the > > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). > > Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to > support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad > options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to > retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not > JL.) Let's focus on the better options. > > -- Bret Bret, I appreciate your effort at reconciliation. Thanks for that. However I did not miss what you say I missed. In fact you missed that even in the quote of me that you mention I did not say that anyone who" supports unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad > options" is a (neo)imperialist. I wont ever say so, I know many people who hold such an opinion and whose politics I respect, while disagreeing. (BTW nothing at all in JL's email remotely suggests that he considers the present arrangement as 'a bad option' at all, even at an absolute, non-comparative level.) I also added the second condition - one who also speaks with derision ('don't dream' etc)about people's efforts of exploring other options (see my above quote and my earlier email for more details) which obviously means (actually means more and worse than) that one simply doesn't engage with seeking other options, which means that one is quite satisfied with present arrangements. That seems to more-or-less fit your description above of what would be an imperialist... Better options are not after all available in the political space as one would say find them on a survey form, that one can tick one rather than the other. If one thinks there should be better options that is represented in efforts towards working towards such option, or at least respecting those who are so working, or at the very least, not speak with derision about all such efforts.. I think my corresponding deduction that JL doesn't seek better options and is happy with the present ones is logical. After all no one gets up and publicly announces, I do not seek better options, and that I hold to neo-imperialist ideology. One only does as much was done in John's email. Rest is for others to do and speak. Which I did dutifully. Not very pleasant I agree, but neither is to speak derisively of other people's political beliefs and efforts, that they cherish a lot, and work for hard. Thanks Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > > derides > > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or > > you deny > > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > > one is the > > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). > > Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to > support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad > options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to > retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not > JL.) Let's focus on the better options. > > -- 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 Aug 7 00:43:31 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:13:31 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <34BFF2CD-3B48-4AC7-A880-93D4E0D5E4F6@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <20080807044357.06943E2501@smtp3.electricembers.net> >Let's focus on the better options. > > -- Bret Yes, that's what I do. In fact my email from which McTim picked the reference to 'neo-imperialist view', to seek caucus proceedings against me, deals at length with my approach to seeking such options, and solicits other members comments... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Parminder wrote: > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > > derides > > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or > > you deny > > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when > > one is the > > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). > > Here's where I think you missed it, Parminder. It's possible to > support unilateral control by the U.S. as the best among several bad > options, and not be an imperialist. An imperialist would want to > retain U.S. control even in the face of better options. (That's not > JL.) Let's focus on the better options. > > -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Aug 7 02:33:11 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:33:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF55@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi MM, On 8/7/08 3:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move > forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in > DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US > oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been > at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." > Why is he exempt from criticism here? There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and personal attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be happier here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for > the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can > start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root > and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA > removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we > have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify > termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from > this crowd. While Iike all good citizens I normally commit all IGP utterances to memory (just kidding), and recall reading your NTIA submission, I can't say that I've ever seen anyone really make the sort of case I was asking for. There is for example a difference between saying the JPA should be ended in order to depoliticize things and bring cheer to people who just don't like the USG role, and making a case that will resonate in the beltway, Silicon Valley, etc that there are no significant risks to doing so in terms of security, stability, 'foreign dictators asserting control,' etc. WSIS-speak etc won't cut it, there are probably like five people on K St. or Capitol Hill who could tell you what the Tunis Agenda says. A compelling case would need to be anthropologically attuned to the tribal customs, communicative practices and collective memories of the target audiences, and promoted in a manner that works in the local institutional ecology. Or, we can just stand back and say screw 'em, they're insular and don't get what people elsewhere are thinking, in which case the prospects for change remain dim. Not defending it, just saying that's how it is. There's an almost total disjuncture between life worlds here. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 6 05:04:10 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:04:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: Message-ID: <48996909.D5D3AE99@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, Well Bill, you summed it up pretty well. One would be wise to keep in context/mind that there has been a disjuncture between life worlds in the networking world long before the Internet was in existance. And no, Al Gore didn't invent that either! >:) William Drake wrote: > Hi MM, > > On 8/7/08 3:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move > > forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in > > DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US > > oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been > > at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." > > Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and personal > attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be happier > here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. > > > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for > > the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can > > start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root > > and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA > > removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we > > have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify > > termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from > > this crowd. > > While Iike all good citizens I normally commit all IGP utterances to memory > (just kidding), and recall reading your NTIA submission, I can't say that > I've ever seen anyone really make the sort of case I was asking for. There > is for example a difference between saying the JPA should be ended in order > to depoliticize things and bring cheer to people who just don't like the USG > role, and making a case that will resonate in the beltway, Silicon Valley, > etc that there are no significant risks to doing so in terms of security, > stability, 'foreign dictators asserting control,' etc. WSIS-speak etc won't > cut it, there are probably like five people on K St. or Capitol Hill who > could tell you what the Tunis Agenda says. A compelling case would need to > be anthropologically attuned to the tribal customs, communicative practices > and collective memories of the target audiences, and promoted in a manner > that works in the local institutional ecology. Or, we can just stand back > and say screw 'em, they're insular and don't get what people elsewhere are > thinking, in which case the prospects for change remain dim. > > Not defending it, just saying that's how it is. There's an almost total > disjuncture between life worlds here. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 7 07:00:20 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:00:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thank you. One comment below: >Hi All > >The voting for a new co-coordinator of IGC to >replace Vittorio will take place through a web >based system between 10th and 17th August. The >result will be announced on the 19th. > >The two candidates are David Goldstein and Ian >Peter, whom I thank for volunteering for this >important organizational responsibility. > >The voting will be conducted by me, as directed >by the charter >(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html >), with the help of Derrick Cogburn of Syracuse >University who has offered the software he has >earlier used for GigaNet elections, and also to >administer the voting process. > >Each person subscribed to the governance list as >on June 7th 2008 ( i.e. two months prior to the >start of the election process) will be sent an >email with information on the voting process, >conditions etc along with a unique web-link that >takes the person to a secure website. The list >subscriber will then be given the option to >affirm/ accept membership of the caucus by >subscribing to the charter (as per the charter¹s >provisions for the voting process). On such >positive affirmation, the person will be taken >to the ballot page where the vote can be cast by >ticking against one of the two candidates. A >Œnone of the above¹ option will also be >available. > >A vote once cast cannot be changed. > >While we strongly encourage everyone to vote as >a sign of ones active engagement with the >caucus, voting is not compulsory for retaining >caucus membership, i.e. if one is already on the >caucus members list ( see >www.igcaucus.org/members-080721.html >). However, it is important to note that, as per >the charter¹s provisions on charter amendments, >one has to have voted in the previous election >to be able to vote at any charter amendment >process. Therefore, to have voting rights in any >charter amendment process (but not for any other >voting process) that may come before the next >election, one HAS to vote in this election. > This being so, could the ballot please include the option to vote for "none of the above" in addition to the two candidates. I do not mean to imply any disapproval of either David or Ian (I intend to vote for both early and often :-) ) but simply as an opportunity for anyone who cannot decide (whatever) to remain on the voting register. Thanks, Adam >As per the charter, all voting will be open, >unless specifically declared to be secret, for >which reason(s) have to be stated. I declare >that the present voting will be secret. The >reason for this is that the process involves >individuals making a choice between two >colleague individuals and that has the >likelihood of leaving an avoidable trace on >inter-personal relationships in the group. >Moreover, in my opinion, there is no special >imperatives of transparency and openness, in >this case, which will be met by an open vote. > >The voting process is completely anonymous, no >names are associated with the voting. The IP >address is captured and stored in a database, >but is not accessed by the voting process >administrator (Derrick). Derrick, but not I, >will be able to see the aggregated results as >they come in, However, to repeat, no one will be >able to see or know any voter¹s specific voting >choice. > >Derrick will technically be able to access >information on whether anyone has cast one¹s >vote or not. This information will however not >actually be accessed during the process > >At the end of the process, on the 19th, along >with the result, a list of voters will be >published. Those among them who are not >currently on the members¹ list will be added to >the standing list since during the process of >voting they would have accepted membership by >subscribing to the charter. > >The elected co-coordinator will take charge >immediately on the announcement of the result, >and Vittorio will cease to be a co-coordinator. > >I also declare that I have satisfied myself >about the security and trustworthiness of the >voting process, to the levels that in my >understanding are required and adequate for the >current purpose. > >The email creating a voters account will be sent >out on 10th August and the voting will close at >midnight ­ GMT - of 17th ­ 18th August. > >If needed, I will add more information to the >above by tomorrow. Meanwhile, clarifications are >welcome. > >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 Aug 7 07:19:22 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:19:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 7 Aug 2008, at 13:00, Adam Peake wrote: > > This being so, could the ballot please include the option to vote > for "none of the above" in addition to the two candidates. I do not > mean to imply any disapproval of either David or Ian (I intend to > vote for both early and often :-) ) but simply as an opportunity for > anyone who cannot decide (whatever) to remain on the voting register. he did include that option: > On 7 Aug 2008, at 05:11, Parminder wrote: > >> Hi All ... >> A ‘none of the above’ option will also be available. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 7 07:50:07 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:50:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 1:19 PM +0200 8/7/08, Avri Doria wrote: >On 7 Aug 2008, at 13:00, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>This being so, could the ballot please include >>the option to vote for "none of the above" in >>addition to the two candidates. I do not mean >>to imply any disapproval of either David or Ian >>(I intend to vote for both early and often :-) >>) but simply as an opportunity for anyone who >>cannot decide (whatever) to remain on the >>voting register. > > >he did include that option: > yes. I need to learn to read. Parminder... thanks! Adam >>On 7 Aug 2008, at 05:11, Parminder wrote: >> >>>Hi All >... > >>>A Œnone of the above¹ option will also be available. > > >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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Aug 7 07:57:58 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: 20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Parminder, At what time GMT will the ballots be sent out? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Aug 7 17:07:31 2008 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <20080807031151.4621AE250C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <44506.25752.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Parminder Will you be sending out a  paragraph on each of the candidates or will this be accompanying the ballot itself . Might be useful for those who do not know either candidate or too polite to ask.   Thanks  Shaila Rao Mistry be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms ....      --- On Wed, 8/6/08, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 8:11 PM Hi All   The voting for a new co-coordinator of IGC to replace Vittorio will take place through a web based system between 10th and 17th August. The result will be announced on the 19th.   The two candidates are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, whom I thank for volunteering for this important organizational responsibility.   The voting will be conducted by me, as directed by the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), with the help of Derrick Cogburn of Syracuse University who has offered the software he has earlier used for GigaNet elections, and also to administer the voting process.   Each person subscribed to the governance list as on June 7th 2008 ( i.e. two months prior to the start of the election process) will be sent an email with information on the voting process, conditions etc along with a unique web-link that takes the person to a secure website. The list subscriber will then be given the option to affirm/ accept membership of the caucus by subscribing to the charter (as per the charter’s provisions for the voting process). On such positive affirmation, the person will be taken to the ballot page where the vote can be cast by ticking against one of the two candidates. A ‘none of the above’ option will also be available.   A vote once cast cannot be changed.   While we strongly encourage everyone to vote as a sign of ones active engagement with the caucus, voting is not compulsory for retaining caucus membership, i.e. if one is already on the caucus members list ( see www.igcaucus.org/members-080721.html ). However, it is important to note that, as per the charter’s provisions on charter amendments, one has to have voted in the previous election to be able to vote at any charter amendment process. Therefore, to have voting rights in any charter amendment process (but not for any other voting process) that may come before the next election, one HAS to vote in this election.   As per the charter, all voting will be open, unless specifically declared to be secret, for which reason(s) have to be stated. I declare that the present voting will be secret. The reason for this is that the process involves individuals making a choice between two colleague individuals and that has the likelihood of leaving an avoidable trace on inter-personal relationships in the group. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no special imperatives of transparency and openness, in this case, which will be met by an open vote.   The voting process is completely anonymous, no names are associated with the voting.  The IP address is captured and stored in a database, but is not accessed by the voting process administrator (Derrick). Derrick, but not I, will be able to see the aggregated results as they come in, However, to repeat, no one will be able to see or know any voter’s specific voting choice.   Derrick will technically be able to access information on whether anyone has cast one’s vote or not. This information will however not actually be accessed during the process   At the end of the process, on the 19th, along with the result, a list of voters will be published. Those among them who are not currently on the members’ list will be added to the standing list since during the process of voting they would have accepted membership by subscribing to the charter.   The elected co-coordinator will take charge immediately on the announcement of the result, and Vittorio will cease to be a co-coordinator.   I also declare that I have satisfied myself about the security and trustworthiness of the voting process, to the levels that in my understanding are required and adequate for the current purpose.   The email creating a voters account will be sent out on 10th August and the voting will close at midnight – GMT - of 17th – 18th August.   If needed, I will add more information to the above by tomorrow. Meanwhile, clarifications are welcome.   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: -------------- 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 Thu Aug 7 17:10:40 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:10:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] In-Reply-To: <48995803.3060706@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <004e01c8f8d2$0bfd4f30$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Based on fairly extensive experience with "evaluation" over many years including in the context of the UN system I would observe here that as is often the case there is an attempt to shift was is essentially a "political" decision (continuation of the IGF) into the technical sphere (i.e. evaluation as the "objective determination of the achievement of a pre-defined set of (program) goals/objectives"). The problem with doing this is that it generally puts the "political" onus on the evaluator/evaluation and thus on the process of determination of evaluation criteria and the selection/personality/biases of the evaluator. A tough position for the evaluator for sure but also very tricky in terms of ensuring that one's (e.g. IGC's) specific interests are adequately represented in the process and the outcome. On the other hand it is often very useful to have a qualified third party draw up the logic models, put the relevant information together, interview the various stakeholders and so on. Another way of proceeding, and one perhaps more in keeping with the spirit of the IGF and multistakeholderism would be that the evaluation be seen as a multistakeholder "process" rather than the "product"/output of a specific evaluator. The "evaluator" would thus be chosen to inform and support the evaluation process with the outcome of this process being a recommendation from the participants in the process to the SG rather as being simply the outcome of the evaluator's internal analyses. MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: August 6, 2008 12:52 AM To: Governance Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Hi everyone, the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this idea, others expressed reservations. In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for the evaluation of the IGF. jeanette Dear colleagues, In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under this agenda item. At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into action. A few elements are given: The actors: -The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum") - Forum participants (they are to be consulted) - UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on recommendations by the Secretary-General The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation". Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010 at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting. The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual General Assembly which meets each year between September and December. Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The elements for the Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to be ready by late 2009. Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with Forum participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the 2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for these "formal consultations with Forum participants." This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their interpretation. The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be helpful. In any case, we should start "examining the desirability of the continuation of the Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at the latest. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 7 18:10:40 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:10:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] More on the USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA01@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Right in the midst of our comments another letter went from Commerce Department to ICANN, and another zinger, too! You can find my analysis here: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/8/6/3827683.html 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 6 22:32:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:32:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] More on the USG-ICANN relationship References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA01@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <489A5EA0.27A3BF60@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Yes this is not all that new of a DOC/NTIA letter. However, I also don't necessarly agree with your analysis of it. The next administration will play a significant role in what the future of the GAC and DOC/NTIA will bring. Given that USG policy in many areas is not well recieved in some other countries, it is not necessarly a given that either of your hedged potential futures are likely. Yet certainly they are possibilities... Milton L Mueller wrote: > Right in the midst of our comments another letter went from Commerce > Department to ICANN, and another zinger, too! > You can find my analysis here: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/8/6/3827683.html > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 7 21:18:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:48:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <44506.25752.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080808011845.46A64A6CB2@smtp2.electricembers.net> Shaila Yes, I will get a para on each out by tomorrow. I have also to address Bill's earlier email offering some suggestions and posing some queries on the process. In regard to that email, I intend not to ask for a statement of candidature, but only provide a brief bio. And yes this should have been announced as a part of election process - the new co-coordinator will be elected for 2 years. His tenure will overlap briefly with mine, and then a new co-coordinator will be elected (in my place). The responsibility of taking decisions and choosing time/ schedule for this next election will exclusively be with the co-coordinator elected in this election (and not jointly with him and me), which is of course subject to appeal with the appeals committee. Beyond this on the issue of how the yearly election schedule is at present out of step with what was originally stated in the charter, and what may be done about it, I will give my comments after this elections Parminder _____ From: shaila mistry [mailto:shailam at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election Hi Parminder Will you be sending out a paragraph on each of the candidates or will this be accompanying the ballot itself . Might be useful for those who do not know either candidate or too polite to ask. Thanks Shaila Rao Mistry be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms .... --- On Wed, 8/6/08, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 8:11 PM Hi All The voting for a new co-coordinator of IGC to replace Vittorio will take place through a web based system between 10th and 17th August. The result will be announced on the 19th. The two candidates are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, whom I thank for volunteering for this important organizational responsibility. The voting will be conducted by me, as directed by the charter ( http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), with the help of Derrick Cogburn of Syracuse University who has offered the software he has earlier used for GigaNet elections, and also to administer the voting process. Each person subscribed to the governance list as on June 7th 2008 ( i.e. two months prior to the start of the election process) will be sent an email with information on the voting process, conditions etc along with a unique web-link that takes the person to a secure website. The list subscriber will then be given the option to affirm/ accept membership of the caucus by subscribing to the charter (as per the charter's provisions for the voting process). On such positive affirmation, the person will be taken to the ballot page where the vote can be cast by ticking against one of the two candidates. A 'none of the above' option will also be available. A vote once cast cannot be changed. While we strongly encourage everyone to vote as a sign of ones active engagement with the caucus, voting is not compulsory for retaining caucus membership, i.e. if one is already on the caucus members list ( see www.igcaucus.org/members-080721.html ). However, it is important to note that, as per the charter's provisions on charter amendments, one has to have voted in the previous election to be able to vote at any charter amendment process. Therefore, to have voting rights in any charter amendment process (but not for any other voting process) that may come before the next election, one HAS to vote in this election. As per the charter, all voting will be open, unless specifically declared to be secret, for which reason(s) have to be stated. I declare that the present voting will be secret. The reason for this is that the process involves individuals making a choice between two colleague individuals and that has the likelihood of leaving an avoidable trace on inter-personal relationships in the group. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no special imperatives of transparency and openness, in this case, which will be met by an open vote. The voting process is completely anonymous, no names are associated with the voting. The IP address is captured and stored in a database, but is not accessed by the voting process administrator (Derrick). Derrick, but not I, will be able to see the aggregated results as they come in, However, to repeat, no one will be able to see or know any voter's specific voting choice. Derrick will technically be able to access information on whether anyone has cast one's vote or not. This information will however not actually be accessed during the process At the end of the process, on the 19th, along with the result, a list of voters will be published. Those among them who are not currently on the members' list will be added to the standing list since during the process of voting they would have accepted membership by subscribing to the charter. The elected co-coordinator will take charge immediately on the announcement of the result, and Vittorio will cease to be a co-coordinator. I also declare that I have satisfied myself about the security and trustworthiness of the voting process, to the levels that in my understanding are required and adequate for the current purpose. The email creating a voters account will be sent out on 10th August and the voting will close at midnight - GMT - of 17th - 18th August. If needed, I will add more information to the above by tomorrow. Meanwhile, clarifications are welcome. 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: -------------- 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 Aug 7 21:19:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:49:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080808012014.9F96467870@smtp1.electricembers.net> Yehuda The time will be announced. But no one needs to hold ones breath for it :) since the voting will open for a week following. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election > > Parminder, > > At what time GMT will the ballots be sent out? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 8 01:31:14 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Aug 2008 05:31:14 -0000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Hi. I'm back. >Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals >to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could >support. Hmmn. How would that be different in practice from handing it to the ITU? I don't think the ITU is particularly evil, but I also don't think that it would be likely to do a good job overseeing the Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Aug 8 01:50:42 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:50:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] More on the USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA01@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: "these changes to the registrar WHOIS obligations are in direct contravention to recommendations received from the Governmental Advisory Committee." Contravening the recommendations of an advisory body is impermissible, even when they're internally inconsistent? On 8/8/08 12:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > Right in the midst of our comments another letter went from Commerce > Department to ICANN, and another zinger, too! > You can find my analysis here: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/8/6/3827683.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 Fri Aug 8 02:03:55 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:03:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:31 AM, John Levine wrote: > Hi. I'm back. > >>Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals >>to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could >>support. > > Hmmn. How would that be different in practice from handing it to the > ITU? I don't think the ITU is particularly evil, but I also don't > think that it would be likely to do a good job overseeing the > Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much > higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each > country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that > has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. not to mention not physically possible, as countries don't "get" IP addresses, organisations do. While it's true that these organisations might have offices in one country, they can, and do, use those IPs to number devices in many countries. The understanding of this was missing in WSIS. In general, I am in agreement with your sentiments. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 Fri Aug 8 02:32:11 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:32:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] More on the USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <049590B7-3F88-4403-9DCE-3CEF86063362@psg.com> On 8 Aug 2008, at 07:50, William Drake wrote: > "these changes to the registrar WHOIS obligations are in direct > contravention to recommendations received from the Governmental > Advisory > Committee." > > Contravening the recommendations of an advisory body is > impermissible, even > when they're internally inconsistent? > > In today's ICANN, i think, yes. however, taking tongue out of cheek. it is one thing for the USG to say so - and as any country they have the ability to be as commanding and imperious in their statements as they wish. what remains a question is whether the ICANN Board, to whom all advise, imperious or otherwise, is directed will do as commanded. 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 Fri Aug 8 02:30:46 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:30:46 +1000 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01a301c8f920$4d9291a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> John, McTim, Briefly - An ICANN MOU with UN has absolutely nothing to do with ITU and has no similarity at all to a ITU takeover. Nor has it anything to do whatsoever with countries ganging up to get more IP addresses. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 08 August 2008 16:04 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:31 AM, John Levine wrote: > > Hi. I'm back. > > > >>Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals > >>to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could > >>support. > > > > Hmmn. How would that be different in practice from handing it to the > > ITU? I don't think the ITU is particularly evil, but I also don't > > think that it would be likely to do a good job overseeing the > > Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much > > higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each > > country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that > > has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. > > not to mention not physically possible, as countries don't "get" IP > addresses, organisations do. > > While it's true that these organisations might have offices in one > country, they can, and do, use those IPs to number devices in many > countries. > > The understanding of this was missing in WSIS. > > In general, I am in agreement with your sentiments. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.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 > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1596 - Release Date: 8/6/2008 > 4:55 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Aug 8 02:42:31 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:42:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: Hi John, On 8/8/08 7:31 AM, "John Levine" wrote: > Hi. I'm back. > >> Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals >> to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could >> support. > > Hmmn. How would that be different in practice from handing it to the > ITU? I don't think the ITU is particularly evil, but I also don't > think that it would be likely to do a good job overseeing the > Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much > higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each > country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that > has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. Two thoughts. First, it can be problematic to conflate the UN and the ITU. While ITU became a specialized agency of the UN in 1947, its a much older entity with its own culture and procedures and its operational ties to the UN's core institutions generally have been quite limited (including with respect to the treatment of civil society, alas). Political relations have not always been good. And it is understood in relevant quarters that letting ITU unilaterally reign over anything related to ICT by default is not necessarily a good idea. WSIS was put under the inter-agency HLSOC and other orgs were given roles. Neither IGF nor enhanced cooperation were put under the ITU, despite objections from Russia etc. And the US and most if not all industrialized countries would never agree to giving the ITU any sort of oversight relation to ICANN. Bottom line, I don't know for sure whether the UN SG or GA could legally be the home of an MOU, but I wouldn't simply assume that a UN role means ITU control. Second, the nightmare scenario you describe is entirely inconsistent with the ITU's 140 year history. I cannot think of a single instance in which a bunch of small countries ganged up and pushed through anything the industrialized countries did not accept, and I cannot see how under this could even happen under ITU decision making procedures. Plus this is hardly an intergovernmental policy space; global business (and in this case, Internet administrative bodies and their constituencies) can't be ignored. Plus there's now increasing differentiation of interests among developing countries in ITU as in other international institutions (WSIS as well), so your bunch of countries probably would not enjoy uniform support in the global South. Bottom line, a winning coalition for manifestly wrong-headed policies on names and numbers could not be assembled. A MOU might well be a bad idea politically and operationally; the prospects for getting it right substantively and managing the process effectively would be very difficult. But were the idea to be seriously contemplated (highly unlikely), I wouldn't assume a priori that the sky would fall by definition. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 04:55:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <489AB89C.53CC87AA@ix.netcom.com> John and all, This was tried before pre ICANN it was known as the gtld-mou. It failed than and for good reason. John Levine wrote: > Hi. I'm back. > > >Or what about an ICANN MOU with the UN as a first step? That appeals > >to me as something that might get traction at both ends and we could > >support. > > Hmmn. How would that be different in practice from handing it to the > ITU? I don't think the ITU is particularly evil, but I also don't > think that it would be likely to do a good job overseeing the > Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much > higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each > country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that > has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 05:04:15 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:04:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] More on the USG-ICANN relationship References: Message-ID: <489ABA8F.D4B75484@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, Sound/reads like a circle jerk to me. But given ICANN arcane and often times obtuse and seriously flawed charter, this is not a big surprise or inconsistent with the poor leadership ICANN has consistently displayed and demonstrated over the past 8+ years. William Drake wrote: > "these changes to the registrar WHOIS obligations are in direct > contravention to recommendations received from the Governmental Advisory > Committee." > > Contravening the recommendations of an advisory body is impermissible, even > when they're internally inconsistent? > > On 8/8/08 12:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > Right in the midst of our comments another letter went from Commerce > > Department to ICANN, and another zinger, too! > > You can find my analysis here: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/8/6/3827683.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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 05:23:32 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:23:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] Who wants UN/ITU standards? : Chipped Passport Cloned In Minutes Message-ID: <489ABEDE.D1E8ED6E@ix.netcom.com> All, Well when it comes to users DNS or IT security we definately don't want the UN/ITU standards! We can't even trust the UN's passport standards. Now we all have the dubious pleasure of a potential 3000 more terrorists with valid UN standard Chipped passports. Just lovely! This again clearly demonstrates how poor of judgment the UN has now and frankly had historically. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4467106.ece But I am sure this won't phase the GNSO's decision making "Standard". Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 8 07:31:31 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:31:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Max and all Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally interested in your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? Apologies in advance for the length of this email - those who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and content. The latest draft of the principles is available and open for comment at http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principl es+for+the+networked+communications+environment. The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For example, our project partners are currently working to elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture and the right to participation in government. We've taken an expansive definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights institutions and lawyers around the world take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to the internet or to communication. The sentiments and demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with them actually means in practice. The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the international human rights system. In this way, if the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions. Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on any of these issues. Many thanks, Lisa From: bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Max Senges Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research dear lisa and all Lisa wrote: > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in the fall. It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication best max On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Hallo all Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the appropriate institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues quite often. They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here in South Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the draft bill was badly not well conceived and very controversial. I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public awareness of the issue. It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. Personally, Rui, I would just ignore it. Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and internet governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say there is a lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what the implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work with on specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt this approach in our access work. I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this terrain enough, altough there are exceptions. Anriette Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 From: "Lisa Horner" To: , "Rui Correia" Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > in SA? > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Lisa ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Aug 8 08:11:56 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Voting process for co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: 20080808012014.9F96467870@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: Thank you Parminder, The Time the ballots are sent out is important, It relates to my email filter. I will need to know what Time the so the incoming ballot does not get scrubbed-&-deleted. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From atanugarai.lists at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 10:41:50 2008 From: atanugarai.lists at gmail.com (atanu garai) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:11:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? Message-ID: The International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative that members of the public have access to those standards so that those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and contribution from the national standards organizations which are part of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income comes from membership fees (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible for all internet users and making these standards available openly accessible can further augment development of standardised public systems. Atanu Garai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 8 13:21:18 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:21:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> The same should apply to ITU and all other multilateral agencies with regulatory powers, funded as they are by taxpayers of all member countries. --c.a. atanu garai wrote: > The International Organization for Standardization > (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance > body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least > published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and > information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative > that members of the public have access to those standards so that > those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the > other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the > globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and > contribution from the national standards organizations which are part > of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the > organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income > comes from membership fees > (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one > may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible > for all internet users and making these standards available openly > accessible can further augment development of standardised public > systems. > > Atanu Garai > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From atanugarai.lists at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 14:04:59 2008 From: atanugarai.lists at gmail.com (atanu garai) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 23:34:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: The difference being that ITU standards - so called ITU-T recs - are mostly available free of charge http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/publications/recs.html and reasonably so because these are proceeds of collective intellectual works. No where there is another example like ISO supposedly an international organisation producing instruments that are being applied to virtually every sphere of public systems, yet the very information remains closed. Atanu Garai 2008/8/8 Carlos Afonso : > The same should apply to ITU and all other multilateral agencies with > regulatory powers, funded as they are by taxpayers of all member countries. > > --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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Aug 8 15:13:33 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:13:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <489C9ADD.2060901@rits.org.br> Not so. Summarized docs yes, detailed ones need to be purchased. I think there should be a general policy by every UN agency to make the product of their work open and freely available. --c.a. atanu garai wrote: > The difference being that ITU standards - so called ITU-T recs - are > mostly available free of charge > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/publications/recs.html and reasonably so > because these are proceeds of collective intellectual works. No where > there is another example like ISO supposedly an international > organisation producing instruments that are being applied to virtually > every sphere of public systems, yet the very information remains > closed. > > Atanu Garai > > 2008/8/8 Carlos Afonso : >> The same should apply to ITU and all other multilateral agencies with >> regulatory powers, funded as they are by taxpayers of all member countries. >> >> --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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 20:38:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:38:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] FYI: UN postal agency being roped in to enforce IPR agneda Message-ID: <489B956C.63494214@ix.netcom.com> All, Someone here metioned the UPU. The following was recently announced: Development: UN postal agency being roped in to enforce IPR agenda Published in SUNS #6534 dated 8 August 2008 Geneva, 6 Aug (Sangeeta Shashikant and Riaz K Tayob) -- A United Nations agency dealing with postal services may soon be used to help to police or enforce violations of intellectual property rights in a move that has been little noticed by many developing countries' policymakers. The 24th Universal Postal Congress (UPC) is meeting in Geneva from 23 July to 12 August 2008. The UPC is the supreme authority of the Universal Postal Union. A Committee of the UPC, on 1 August, discussed the issue of counterfeit and pirated items sent through the post. Three proposals on this topic were made, and two of them were adopted by vote. The discussions on the proposals showed that many countries, including some developed countries, were concerned that the postal services at national level were being roped in to fight against counterfeit products when they did not have the legal and other expertise or the scope to deal with this, including on determining whether a product is counterfeit or violates intellectual property laws. Despite concerns raised by many countries, two of the proposals were adopted, because the UPU Committee makes decisions based on a vote (after discussions that are brief and limited, compared to the length of discussions allowed in other UN organizations), rather than by consensus (as is the case in most other UN organizations). The proposals discussed were: (1) a Resolution 40 on "Counterfeit and pirated items sent through the post"; (2) an amendment to the UPU Convention on the list of articles prohibited through the post; and (3) an amendment to the Convention on sender's liability. The proposed Resolution and the amendment on the list of prohibited articles were adopted by member states while the amendment concerning sender's liability was rejected. According to a source from the UPU, there has been increasing pressure from the World Customs Organisation (WCO) to adopt proposals on counterfeiting and pirated items. The WCO is among the international organizations that are being used to push forward an "Anti-Counterfeiting Agenda" drawn up by major developed countries. Other organizations are the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The UPU, with its Headquarters in Berne, is the primary forum for cooperation between postal-sector players. It has 191 member countries and is a UN specialised agency. It sets the rules for international mail exchanges and makes recommendations to stimulate growth in mail volumes and to improve the quality of service. According to a policy expert on IPRs, Susan Sell, proponents of the IP maximalist agenda are using the concepts of "counterfeiting", "piracy" and "enforcement" in international organizations to push their agenda to set or enforce higher IP standards. Sell, who is Director of the Institute for Global and International Studies and Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University (USA), in a recent paper said the IP anti-counterfeiting and enforcement agenda involves hundreds of OECD-based global business firms and their foreign subsidiaries. It also includes initiatives and programmes such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); Interpol's Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (SECURE); the US Chamber of Commerce's (USCC) "Coalition against Counterfeiting and Piracy Intellectual Property Enforcement Initiatives: Campaign to Protect America"; the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP); WHO's "International Medicinal Products Anti-Counterfeit Taskforce" (IMPACT); WIPO's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) discussions; bilateral and regional free trade agreements, investment treaties and Economic Partnership Agreements. These new anti-counterfeiting and enforcement initiatives are the latest mechanisms to achieve the goals of what Sell calls the "IP maximalists", which is to "ratchet up" IP protection and enforcement worldwide, beyond the TRIPS Agreement. Part of the aim is to counter recent setbacks in raising IP standards at the multilateral level, and to counter public campaigns such as the access to knowledge and medicines movement, says Sell. The proposals before the UPU signify that UPU is the latest addition to the "strategic forum shifting" for pushing forward the "Anti-Counterfeiting" Agenda. Resolution 40 which was adopted (with an amendment proposed by Brazil), in its operative paragraphs: "Urges UPU member countries in the context of national legislation to encourage their postal administrations to: -- take all reasonable and practical measures to support Customs in their role of identifying counterfeit and pirated items in the postal network; -- cooperate with the relevant national and international authorities to the maximum possible extent in awareness-raising initiatives aimed at preventing the illegal circulation of counterfeit goods, particularly through postal services." The preamble to Resolution 40 notes that "the postal channel is used, together with other distribution channels, for the sending of counterfeit and pirated items"; "that the POC Committee 3 Customs Support Project Group has carried out a study on UPU customs and security-related issues concerning intellectual property matters"; "that the results of the study revealed that postal administration have no legal competence in determining whether or not an item is a counterfeit or whether a customs declaration has been falsely completed; "that the Customs and experts on intellectual property rights are primarily responsible for determining whether an item is counterfeit"; that the legislation of member countries on how to deal with counterfeit and pirated items varies from country to country; and finally "that the above problems cause operational difficulties and legal problems for the countries concerned". To implement the actions, the Resolution mentions several "performance indicators", including assistance given to designated operators to develop strategies at a national level in cooperation with national customs authorities; enabling postal administrations to learn risk-assessment techniques on how to identify counterfeit and pirated items in the postal network; reading materials developed in cooperation with the WCO; participation of the UPU at international forums to study/follow postal-related issues concerning IP infringements; developing an e-learning module in cooperation with the WCO. Resolution 40 is a "Proposal of a General Nature" submitted by Postal Operations Council (POC) to the Committee. The WCO-UPU Contact Committee and the POC 3 Customs Support Project Group presented this Resolution to the POC for examination in January 2008. France, in introducing the Resolution, said that the postal network was used to send counterfeit and pirated items, adding that it was the international customs organisation which raised the issue. Germany, while supporting the proposal, stressed that postal operators were not enforcement authorities. It understood that there were pressures from the WCO and the EU to focus on counterfeiting and pirated items and that it was linked to risk management. This, it said, has to be done by the proper authorities, i. e. the custom authorities. Germany said: "We should not forget that we are not in the position to act as an enforcement authority". It should be an important topic of the customs support group and WCO-UPU contact committee, it added. (The Customs Support Group was reconstituted on the basis of Bucharest Congress resolution C63/2004. Its overall objective is to raise the profile of Customs issues and to help UPU member countries prepare for regulatory changes addressing the issues. One area of activity it has focused on is closely following regulatory questions and where necessary, representing the interests of the UPU community at large with policymakers, at national and international level, paying attention to new regulatory requirements in various countries and regions, as well as potential intellectual property rights issues. (The WCO-UPU contact committee is an official forum for cooperation between the WCO and UPU. Actions carried out include the possible effect of WCO's SAFE Framework of Standards, particularly the concept of authorized economic operator on posts, efforts to combat illegal transactions in counterfeit or pirated goods, including the possible formulation of regulations, WCO's input into efforts to develop UPU security standards and procedures, development of e-learning modules, updating joint WCO-UPU publications etc). The US supported the concept but added that the implementation of the actions and goals should be incorporated into the postal security action group (PSAG) and should be limited to working through the PSAG in developing guidelines, procedures and tools that will combat the counterfeiter. Measures should, for example, be on how to use customs electronic information, how to address isolating shipment etc. PSAC should share the results with UPU customs group, it added. The US said that it was the law and customs authorities and not the postal staff that should be concerned with enforcement. However, postal security and enforcement can and do coordinate with the law and enforcement authorities. (PSAG is chaired by the US and acts to combat the use of the Post as a vehicle of terrorism, to launder money, improve postal security policies and develop dynamic security strategies etc). China said that issues similar to the protection of IP and fighting against counterfeit have been discussed in the WTO and the WCO and because developing and developed countries have different understanding, the proposals in those agencies have not been accepted. It added that the issue should be studied further, and a hasty decision should not be taken. It stressed that measures taken should not constitute barriers to international trade and should be consistent with the WIPO Development Agenda. A representative of the WCO said that it cooperated to enhance the training for members and postal administrations and so it generally welcomed and supported the proposal outlined. It also added that a study was being conducted to fight against counterfeiting. Malaysia said that it was concerned with the terminology to support customs with "reasonable and practical measures" as it was not defined in the proposal, adding that it did not know the extent of the proposal. It also said that what Malaysia deems as sufficient may not comply with UPU's definition of the term. It was concerned with the requirement to raise maximum awareness to prevent illegal circulation of counterfeit goods particularly through postal services. This suggested that the postal service was also responsible to prevent illegal circulation of counterfeit goods, although such circulation may not always be through the postal service. In many countries, whether an item is counterfeit lies with the body that is concerned with IP and so the language needs to be refined further. Malaysia added that whatever that is done under the UPU has to be aligned with WIPO, and WIPO policies differ from country to country. It called for a further study of the proposal. France clarified that "reasonable measures" meant that it was up to each country to decide and one could adapt to the needs of the state. It said the postal service can take part in the awareness raising, and the purpose would be to prevent the use of the postal service for counterfeiting. Brazil proposed adding "in the context of the national legislation" having heard the concerns of China and Malaysia. Saudi Arabia said that in its country, the issue of counterfeiting rested with the ministry of culture and not with customs and while there is cooperation between the UPU and the WCO, there are differences in the legislation. It also called for a study of the issue. The International Bureau of UPU said that the Resolution was only a statement of intent and each country can interpret the resolution. Despite several countries wishing to make statements on the issue, the Chair cut the debate short and called for a vote. In response, South Africa raised a motion to continue debate, which was put to vote, but the vote did not succeed, and as a result, the Resolution was put to vote. 95 countries voted in favour of the Resolution, 22 against and 20 countries abstained from voting. The result of the outcome has now led several countries to file an appeal to the plenary session, when the Resolution comes up for final adoption. The appeal is co-sponsored by Egypt, India, Jordan, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syria, China and Turkey. The amendments proposed are to the preamble of the Resolution as follows: PP 1 (bis) -- "Without prejudice to the ongoing IP related work in other competent international organizations" PP4 (alt) -- "Understanding that determination of counterfeit items is the responsibility of relevant national authorities, in accordance with national legislation" On the proposal of PP4 (alt), the concern is that the original version will shift responsibility of determining IP infringement from a state's judiciary to customs, although the latter may not have adequate competence in the matter. The proponents are confident that the appeal will go through. France and Italy supported by Great Britain and Netherlands also introduced a proposal to amend Article 15 of the 2004 Bucharest Convention which pertains to the list of articles prohibited (to be sent by post). They proposed to include in the list of prohibited articles: (1) a new para 2.1.2bis on "counterfeit and pirated articles"; (2) the word "other" in front of "articles the importation or circulation of which is prohibited in the country of destination"; and (3) a new paragraph 2.1.5bis on "where prohibited articles are identified, they shall be treated in accordance with the national legislation". According to the proposal, the reasons for this amendment was to reduce the circulation of counterfeit and pirated articles between UPU members and show customs authorities that the UPU actively supports the WCO's current campaign to stamp out the production and circulation of pirated and counterfeit products, such as dangerous toys and electrical items, dangerous counterfeit medicines and brand goods, which do serious economic harm to domestic and international companies. The proposal added that "with the introduction of the article, the sender will be obliged to take responsibility for the content of the item when she signs the CN 23 form". In introducing the proposal, Italy dropped the amendment to include para 2.1.5bis. The WCO strongly supported the proposal, adding that it will give a strong message to UPU to fight against counterfeit and pirated goods. It said that it has always been involved in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy particularly in the area of public health and security. Canada raised several concerns with the amendment. It said that it is not within the expertise of postal employees to identify such items, adding that there were other authorities especially the custom authorities, which were better placed to deal with these items and thus it could not support the provision. Bangladesh said that the implications for developing countries have to be kept in mind. For every item imported, a request for certificate is made and everything is stuck with the Customs. It said that this proposal should not be accepted since the previous proposal (i. e. the Resolution) has been accepted. When the proposal was put to vote, there was agreement from 118 countries, with 3 countries opposing and 14 countries abstaining. The third proposal before the Congress was to amend Article 23 of the Convention and to include a new paragraph 4 bis on sender's liability, i. e. "The sender of a pirated or counterfeit good shall be fully liable, under the legislation of the country of origin as well as that of the country of destination". The proposal was moved by France, supported by Great Britain and Italy. Canada said that the proposal creates extraterritorial liabilities. It seems that we are creating civil offences and it is not clear whether it is creating criminal liability and there was a need to show mens rea (i. e. intention), it added. Considering that Resolution 40 had been adopted, the proposal on sender's liability be left for further consideration, it said. Kazakhstan, New Zealand, China, and the US supported Canada. The US expressed concern with regards to the extraterritoriality of the law. Egypt said that the liability of the sender is set out in the country of origin and it was not aware of liability in the country of destination. France said that it was important for the postal administration to establish the principle that they do not accept liability and it was possible to revisit this question. It added that what the proposal does is to establish a foundation of rules that applies equally and with no distortion from country to country. The proposal was put to vote, and was rejected with 42 countries agreeing with the proposal, 53 countries disagreeing and 36 countries abstaining. The Congress will close on 12 August. More than 2,000 delegates are attending the Congress, which is the supreme authority of the Union. Although the Congress' main function is legislative, the recent tendency has been to focus more on strategic and broad policy issues and the 2008 Congress will adopt a World Postal Strategy that will serve as a roadmap for member countries and UPU bodies until the next Congress in 2012. (Note: Future editions of the SUNS will publish more articles on the role of other international organizations in IP enforcement as part of the anti-counterfeiting agenda.) + Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 20:52:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:52:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <489B98CC.88C9C231@ix.netcom.com> Lisa and all, Excellent work here. Well done! I know that the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights fully supports the principals your organization proposes, as does our "Freedom of Expression" section in our bylaws. Many other countries founding principals documents do as well. Yet unfortunately many countries whom fully recognize such rights have and do currently fail to follow them or do not enforce them as they are or were intended. This unfortunately at times includes the US. Unfortunately, ICANN doesn't support such principals. >:( Hopefully they will eventually see the error in their ways and endorse these well defined principals. I especially liked this section of your organizations "Bill-of-Rights" principals: http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/5+content+layer Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi Max and all > > Thanks for your interest in what we’re doing. I’m equally interested > in your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we > could start a ‘research ideas’ and ‘research in progress’ page on the > bill of rights wiki? > > Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those who aren’t > interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! > > The research we’re doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of > Expression Project. I think I’ve mentioned before that we’re working > with 6 key partner organizations in different countries to develop > policy principles that, if adhered to, would shape a global > communications environment that would support human rights and a > ‘public interest’ communications environment. They address issues > spanning infrastructure, code and content. The latest draft of the > principles is available and open for comment at > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so > that they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them > to provide an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy > at different scales. For example, our project partners are currently > working to elaborate what they might mean in different country > contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for policy > work. A major aim is to identify spaces where different stakeholders > can agree that they share certain values and principles, and work to > shape policy accordingly. > > We have been working to base all of our work so far in international > human rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right > to culture and the right to participation in government. We’ve taken > an expansive definition of freedom of expression that many (but not > all) human rights institutions and lawyers around the world take. > This includes positive dimensions of freedom of expression, including > the notion that governments are responsible for putting the necessary > structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be realized. > Incidentally, that’s why I don’t believe that we need to be advocating > for new rights such as the right to the internet or to communication. > The sentiments and demands expressed by these ‘new’ rights are already > contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, our energy > should be focused on further developing and upholding what we have > already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions of > freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as > Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > understanding about what international rights standards and compliance > with them actually means in practice. > > The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to > this effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of > expression is being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical > thought and case law, and identifying areas where further work needs > to be done. It is taking our policy principles framework as a > starting point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the international > human rights system. In this way, if the framework was used as a > basis for policy discussion, human rights standards would effectively > be ‘mainstreamed’ within the discussions. > > Whilst I’m sure some would make the argument that these aren’t IG > issues, we hope that we’re making a positive contribution towards > ensuring that the ‘shared norms and principles that shape the use and > evolution of the internet’ are rooted in human rights standards. > These are the most widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards > in the world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why it > makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, rather than try > to reinvent or disregard them. > > I’ll leave it there for now, but I’m interested to hear anybody’s > thoughts on the work we’re doing, and am keen to explore > opportunities to collaborate on further research on any of these > issues. > > Many thanks, > > Lisa > > From: bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Max Senges > > Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > dear lisa and all > > Lisa wrote: > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles > based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international > human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > insights... > > that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet > and Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i > agreed to frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to > be taken up in the fall. > > It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other > research undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to > IG. > > Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? > > Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited > to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid > duplication > > best > max > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the > appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech > issues quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is > their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times > here in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the > draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human > rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create > public awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less > desirable. Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between > rights and internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you > say there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out > what the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can > work with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. > APC tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged > this terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: > beijing ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with > the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred > that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that > constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other > legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current > age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done > in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of > dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression > and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new > campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing > human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles > based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international > human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the > strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done > better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; > whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives > valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the > great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy > cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 21:09:21 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:09:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <489B9CC1.2262E3EF@ix.netcom.com> Carlos and all, Of course your right here. And of course as the US is by far the largest funder, it would only seem fair that that fact should not go unrecognized and duely considered accordingly. Carlos Afonso wrote: > The same should apply to ITU and all other multilateral agencies with > regulatory powers, funded as they are by taxpayers of all member countries. > > --c.a. > > atanu garai wrote: > > The International Organization for Standardization > > (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance > > body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least > > published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and > > information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative > > that members of the public have access to those standards so that > > those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the > > other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the > > globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and > > contribution from the national standards organizations which are part > > of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the > > organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income > > comes from membership fees > > (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one > > may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible > > for all internet users and making these standards available openly > > accessible can further augment development of standardised public > > systems. > > > > Atanu Garai > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 21:11:03 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:11:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <489B9D26.3E7CAC9@ix.netcom.com> Atanu and all, But not ALL are avaliable free of charge. Such is not acceptable, IMO. atanu garai wrote: > The difference being that ITU standards - so called ITU-T recs - are > mostly available free of charge > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/publications/recs.html and reasonably so > because these are proceeds of collective intellectual works. No where > there is another example like ISO supposedly an international > organisation producing instruments that are being applied to virtually > every sphere of public systems, yet the very information remains > closed. > > Atanu Garai > > 2008/8/8 Carlos Afonso : > > The same should apply to ITU and all other multilateral agencies with > > regulatory powers, funded as they are by taxpayers of all member countries. > > > > --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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 8 20:34:39 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Aug 2008 00:34:39 -0000 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Standards organizations such as ISO have been around a lot longer than the Internet, and they've always depended on the sale of copies of standards for support. I'm surprised that the ISO says that sales are only 30% of revenue, although that may be misleading since most of the dues paying ISO members are themselves standards bodies such as ANSI which in turn get most of their revenue from standards sales, too. (In the US, it's faster and cheaper to get copies of ISO standards from ANSI rather than ordering from Switzerland.) Historically, the people interested in standards have been engineers interested in building whatever the standards described, be it screw threads or mobile phones. I've paid for my share of printed ANSI standards and PDFs and didn't begrudge the cost. The proposal on the table appears to be that governments should pay for standards production and distribution rather than standards users. Why is that a particularly good use of public money? Most Internet standards are available for free from from the IETF anyway. ISO standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies of standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing whatever a standard describes. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 23:50:45 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:50:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <489BC295.EF9D3DC7@ix.netcom.com> John and all, I also have paid my fair share of fees to the ISO and ANSI for copies of standards documentation and also did not begrudge the cost. But this is hardly the point. Many people in many poorer nations cannot afford those costs, so they cannot know what a particular ISO standard is, and as such could care less. This benifits no one in a positive manner, as such standards loose meaning and certainly adhearance. Ergo it is in the "Greater Good" for ISO to cease charging for such standards documentation accordingly, and provides for a far greater and broader opertunity for access to knowledge, which is essential. John Levine wrote: > Standards organizations such as ISO have been around a lot longer than > the Internet, and they've always depended on the sale of copies of > standards for support. I'm surprised that the ISO says that sales are > only 30% of revenue, although that may be misleading since most of the > dues paying ISO members are themselves standards bodies such as ANSI > which in turn get most of their revenue from standards sales, too. > (In the US, it's faster and cheaper to get copies of ISO standards > from ANSI rather than ordering from Switzerland.) > > Historically, the people interested in standards have been engineers > interested in building whatever the standards described, be it screw > threads or mobile phones. I've paid for my share of printed ANSI > standards and PDFs and didn't begrudge the cost. > > The proposal on the table appears to be that governments should pay > for standards production and distribution rather than standards users. > Why is that a particularly good use of public money? Most Internet > standards are available for free from from the IETF anyway. ISO > standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies of > standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing whatever > a standard describes. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 02:15:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:45:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's workshop for the IGF Message-ID: <20080809061532.7AAD9A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All The good news from the IGF MAG is that all the three workshops sponsored by the IGC, and one co-sponsored by it, have cleared the pre-selection process, and in my reading, are almost certain to get slots at the IGF. They are now green color coded in the workshops list and the secretariat's communication says that "The green category indicates workshops, which will be allocated a slot at the IGF in Hyderabad." The three workshops being sponsored by the IGF are 1. Internet for All - Exploring a Rights-based Approach 2. The role and mandate of the IGF 3. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty And the one being co-sponsored with the IGP is "The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?". The Secretariat communication does add a cautionary note "Please note that this is not a final assessment, but rather a work in progress. The list is a 'positive list' of workshop proposals which offer solid prospects for staging interesting and successful events. We have not drawn up a 'negative list' of proposals we are rejecting. All workshops still stand a chance of being chosen." And that "The selection process will be finalized at the next MAG Meeting in September, taking into account the discussions during the Open Consultations." But I think the workshops are thorough, in all likelihood. We should now prepare for them intensely. It will be good to have a discussion on this list on each workshop topic as a separate thread. The working groups also need to get more active to finalize format and speakers and share it with the members. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 05:43:07 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:43:07 -0700 Subject: Offlist to: Re: [governance] IGC's workshop for the IGF References: <20080809061532.7AAD9A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <489C152A.FC3F25A4@ix.netcom.com> Parminder, Where does one sign up? Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > The good news from the IGF MAG is that all the three workshops > sponsored by the IGC, and one co-sponsored by it, have cleared the > pre-selection process, and in my reading, are almost certain to get > slots at the IGF. > > They are now green color coded in the workshops list and the > secretariat’s communication says that “The green category indicates > workshops, which will be allocated a slot at the IGF in Hyderabad.” > > The three workshops being sponsored by the IGF are > > 1. Internet for All - Exploring a Rights-based Approach > > 2. The role and mandate of the IGF > > 3. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty > > And the one being co-sponsored with the IGP is “The Future of ICANN: > After the JPA, What?”. > > The Secretariat communication does add a cautionary note > > “Please note that this is not a final assessment, but rather a work in > progress. The list is a 'positive list' of workshop proposals which > offer solid prospects for staging interesting and successful events. > We have not drawn up a 'negative list' of proposals we are rejecting. > All workshops still stand a chance of being chosen.” > > And that > > “The selection process will be finalized at the next MAG Meeting in > September, taking into account the discussions during the Open > Consultations.” > > But I think the workshops are thorough, in all likelihood. We should > now prepare for them intensely. It will be good to have a discussion > on this list on each workshop topic as a separate thread. The working > groups also need to get more active to finalize format and speakers > and share it with the members. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 03:56:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:26:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080809075617.A2563E04A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> > There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and > personal > attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be > happier > here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. Yes. Sure, Bill. But what is less obvious is why such pally-ness with Milton on this subject right at the time he wrote that email to Rui I quoted in my last email. How is "more dangerous than a clear authoritarian" kind of description/ labelling more acceptable that "professes to a neo-imperialist ideology". Can you make that too obvious to all of us please? Let us know why and how Milton's is a legitimate political critique, and mine is reprehensible 'labeling'. Please specifically reply to this. Because you tend to ignore such stuff when it suits you, and normally don't response to such direct queries. Also I ask you again (you didnt respond when I asked earlier) how is your labeling my behavior as Spartacus Youth Club-ish not similar ideological 'labeling' against which practice you speak so strongly. Especially when such labeling is done in the language and idiom of an in-group with no reason to expect that either the person at which it is aimed, or the vast majority of the IGC members, are likely to know what it means/ connotes (I haven't till now been able to get the exact connotations of the labelling, but that hardly matters, right, because the in-group got it and can have a chuckle over it.) (And if, as you said, a coordinator has to be extra careful in such labeling, don't you think the logic also extends in the reverse direction and more restraint may be needed in labeling the co-coordinator's behavior?? Please reply.) I repeat that my use of the expression 'neo-imperialist view' was clearly a part of a political critique which I strongly believe in and hold to, and I consider the kind of personal language you have been using against me in this regard - "dipping in the gutter" and that "belligerent fight-picking" - very objectionable. I specifically ask you to desist from such language or you could be leading both of us towards the 'gutter'. But if you insist and persist, I am game. These are what are personal attacks and not the political critiques that my email offered. I have asked you a few times earlier to avoid superiority- posturing on this list (yes, this is a personal reference as the ones you used against me), which kind of behavior is more subtly (but strongly) and sustained-ly 'excluding and offensive' than the 'behavior' you came out against. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:03 PM > To: Mueller, Milton; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > Hi MM, > > On 8/7/08 3:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move > > forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in > > DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US > > oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been > > at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." > > Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and > personal > attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be > happier > here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. > > > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for > > the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can > > start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root > > and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA > > removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we > > have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify > > termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from > > this crowd. > > While Iike all good citizens I normally commit all IGP utterances to > memory > (just kidding), and recall reading your NTIA submission, I can't say that > I've ever seen anyone really make the sort of case I was asking for. > There > is for example a difference between saying the JPA should be ended in > order > to depoliticize things and bring cheer to people who just don't like the > USG > role, and making a case that will resonate in the beltway, Silicon Valley, > etc that there are no significant risks to doing so in terms of security, > stability, 'foreign dictators asserting control,' etc. WSIS-speak etc > won't > cut it, there are probably like five people on K St. or Capitol Hill who > could tell you what the Tunis Agenda says. A compelling case would need > to > be anthropologically attuned to the tribal customs, communicative > practices > and collective memories of the target audiences, and promoted in a manner > that works in the local institutional ecology. Or, we can just stand back > and say screw 'em, they're insular and don't get what people elsewhere are > thinking, in which case the prospects for change remain dim. > > Not defending it, just saying that's how it is. There's an almost total > disjuncture between life worlds here. > > 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 Aug 9 03:41:00 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:11:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DF55@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080809074120.092A9A6CA6@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton (and Bill and McTim may want to pay special attention) >While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move >forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in DC," >he tried to defend the arrangement, .......and conclude that it (ICANN) needed >"adult supervision.">Why is he exempt from criticism here? Thanks for pointing this out. On 'productive ways' however, I cant see how 'my way' may have been much more or less productive than your 'critique'/ 'labeling' (as one may want to see it) in your response to Rui's emails on the issue of hate-speech websites :). While I cannot bring back the whole political passion that your email expresses, I will quote selectively from what Milton said about Rui's email(the original email is enclosed, for others) "This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian....." In fact my 'neo-imperialist' email did the same comparison between an active political and passive one..... Only that Milton directly says that "it is far more dangerous than..." and I said much more mildly ' may really amount to the same" . I in fact also added a rider - " Unless, one is ready to explore or at least discuss reasonable options." Because, I of course have to speak with much more care than Milton. One, because Milton is speaking about freedom of expression, and I 'merely' about 'neo-imperialism' and second, ok, lets leave it for now.... And Milton feels quite free to proceed on and say.. "I don't see any difference in principle between this and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies." (Milton) "What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression." (milton) I understand that Milton takes it as a legitimate language of (maybe strong) political critique. And since Bill and McTim did not pounce on him when these statements are made right in the middle of their moralising to me, they must also think it is as legitimate political critique (which is to give the most chartable interpretation I can). I have no issues with Milton's descriptions, though I do not agree with him on the views that propel them, nor with the political critique contained therein. However, what at this point I am more interested in knowing is that how were my comments made about neo-imperialist views as a part of a serious and detailed political critique considered so reprehensible and Milton's above comments(and as I know many other such comments) not picked/ pounced on. Is it Bill that you choose the people you pounce on carefully, or else you choose the political positions you pounce on carefully... it has to one, so let me know which is it. Is it something about Milton and me, as persons, or is it that anti-authoritarian-ism is closer to your heart and anti-imperialism a distant consideration, if at all, or maybe, it is something else. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Singh, Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > > > I agree with McTim that this name calling is inappropriate, > particularly > > coming from our coordinator, and that it is seriously distorts what > was > > actually said. Post-JPA has been discussed here before and a number > of > > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move > forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in > DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US > oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been > at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." > Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > > > 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 > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the caucus > > could > > try to do something productive for a change and develop a compelling > > alternative and promote it in a manner that is politically salient. > Then > > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for > the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can > start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root > and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA > removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we > have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify > termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from > this crowd. > > We can debate more radical independence measures later, after a few > post-JPA years and its review by the IGF.... > > > Then maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet > with > > me as to whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do > something in > > Well, at least I picked the primary winner correctly. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: "Milton L Mueller" Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:32:18 +0530 Size: 9558 URL: From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Aug 9 04:31:57 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:31:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080809074120.092A9A6CA6@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On 8/9/08 9:41 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Is it Bill that you choose the people you pounce on carefully, or else you > choose the political positions you pounce on carefully... it has to one, so > let me know which is it. > Neither, of course, but thanks for the usual rhetorical games. As I and others have noted before, it¹s just not appropriate for the coordinator of the caucus to be belligerently picking fights and calling people loaded names. Adam didn¹t do it, Jeanette didn¹t do it, Avri didn¹t do it, so why do you have to? The reasons not to are obvious, it does the process no good at all. We¹ve had this discussion before to no effect so presumably such objections mean nothing to you. That¹s your choice, disagreeing with it is mine. On an unrelated note, I have in the past objected on the list to Milton¹s penchant for insulting verbiage, with equally zero effect. But as he¹s not the coordinator and complaints about it from others are frequent enough, I don¹t feel the need to chime in on each occasion (although I did send him a private note about his exchange with Rui). I don¹t complain about most other rude messages either, I¹m not the school hall monitor. I just thought the coordinator labeling someone a neoimperialist based on a misrepresentation of his comment was especially egregious. Let¹s please not waste any more time on this, nobody wants to read this and we¹re not going to persuade each other. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 06:28:45 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:28:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080809075617.A2563E04A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <489C1FDD.AECEEC31@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, FWIW, I didn't see or construe what you said as "more dangerous than a clear authoritarian" or "kind of description/ labeling more acceptable that "professes to a neo-imperialist ideology", as Milton suggested. I can only guess that this is/was Milton's ideology means testing or a version of Miltons own, and perhaps shared, reverse ideology argumentative form. But again, that's just a guess. I thought your responses Parminder were spot on if my guess is correct. Parminder wrote: > > There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and > > personal > > attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be > > happier > > here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. > > Yes. Sure, Bill. But what is less obvious is why such pally-ness with Milton > on this subject right at the time he wrote that email to Rui I quoted in my > last email. How is "more dangerous than a clear authoritarian" kind of > description/ labelling more acceptable that "professes to a neo-imperialist > ideology". > > Can you make that too obvious to all of us please? > > Let us know why and how Milton's is a legitimate political critique, and > mine is reprehensible 'labeling'. Please specifically reply to this. Because > you tend to ignore such stuff when it suits you, and normally don't response > to such direct queries. > > Also I ask you again (you didnt respond when I asked earlier) how is your > labeling my behavior as Spartacus Youth Club-ish not similar ideological > 'labeling' against which practice you speak so strongly. > > Especially when such labeling is done in the language and idiom of an > in-group with no reason to expect that either the person at which it is > aimed, or the vast majority of the IGC members, are likely to know what it > means/ connotes (I haven't till now been able to get the exact connotations > of the labelling, but that hardly matters, right, because the in-group got > it and can have a chuckle over it.) > > (And if, as you said, a coordinator has to be extra careful in such > labeling, don't you think the logic also extends in the reverse direction > and more restraint may be needed in labeling the co-coordinator's behavior?? > Please reply.) > > I repeat that my use of the expression 'neo-imperialist view' was clearly a > part of a political critique which I strongly believe in and hold to, and I > consider the kind of personal language you have been using against me in > this regard - "dipping in the gutter" and that "belligerent fight-picking" - > very objectionable. I specifically ask you to desist from such language or > you could be leading both of us towards the 'gutter'. But if you insist and > persist, I am game. > > These are what are personal attacks and not the political critiques that my > email offered. > > I have asked you a few times earlier to avoid superiority- posturing on this > list (yes, this is a personal reference as the ones you used against me), > which kind of behavior is more subtly (but strongly) and sustained-ly > 'excluding and offensive' than the 'behavior' you came out against. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:03 PM > > To: Mueller, Milton; Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > Hi MM, > > > > On 8/7/08 3:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move > > > forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in > > > DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what value US > > > oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone who had been > > > at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult supervision." > > > Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > > > There's an distinction between disagreeing with someone's views and > > personal > > attacks with epithets etc. If we maintain it probably most will be > > happier > > here and the conversation more productive. Pretty obvious. > > > > > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA for > > > the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG can > > > start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the root > > > and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the JPA > > > removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. And we > > > have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would justify > > > termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > > > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw from > > > this crowd. > > > > While Iike all good citizens I normally commit all IGP utterances to > > memory > > (just kidding), and recall reading your NTIA submission, I can't say that > > I've ever seen anyone really make the sort of case I was asking for. > > There > > is for example a difference between saying the JPA should be ended in > > order > > to depoliticize things and bring cheer to people who just don't like the > > USG > > role, and making a case that will resonate in the beltway, Silicon Valley, > > etc that there are no significant risks to doing so in terms of security, > > stability, 'foreign dictators asserting control,' etc. WSIS-speak etc > > won't > > cut it, there are probably like five people on K St. or Capitol Hill who > > could tell you what the Tunis Agenda says. A compelling case would need > > to > > be anthropologically attuned to the tribal customs, communicative > > practices > > and collective memories of the target audiences, and promoted in a manner > > that works in the local institutional ecology. Or, we can just stand back > > and say screw 'em, they're insular and don't get what people elsewhere are > > thinking, in which case the prospects for change remain dim. > > > > Not defending it, just saying that's how it is. There's an almost total > > disjuncture between life worlds here. > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 04:36:54 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:06:54 +0530 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080809083711.9A4AC67857@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill >BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing 'adult supervision,' they are talking >about ICANN---the board, et >al---needing oversight. (snip) >In contrast, I didn't hear him saying that other countries are juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and neo->imperialist seems a tad misplaced. Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision of the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- developing country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision". First of all this is a blatant untruth. Developing country governments hate the principle of US's unilateral political supervision of the ICANN (and you know that). The people and civil society in these countries (mostly) hate it even more. Second, to posit such a helpless dependency attitude as characterizing developing countries (which as I said is untrue) is centrally and strongly neo-imperialist. That's the meaning of neo-imperialism. Period. So, I consider it my political duty to offer my political critique to such a position using the political-analytical language of current usage. (And, I would go further to say, I am as justified in also critiquing the apologists for the proponents of such views.) I do know it is not pleasant to be critiqued as holding neo-imperialist views, but I am more bothered about the sensitivities of the countries and people who are the butt of neo-imperialism rather than the feelings of John Levine, if they be, inadvertently, touched in the process. You can of course choose whose feelings you are more bothered about depending upon personal or political preferences. But as I said, no superiority here please. > particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. After you say, yes, I agree with McTim, when he proposes launching official 'inappropriate list behavior' proceedings against me, and add that I am seriously distorting what someone said on the list, you expect that I should not explain myself in some detail but simple run away and hide since 'you have spoken' and that should be it. And now for some personal epithets/ attacks you used against me and my responses to them in terms of what, in that case, I may have to say about you, (because if you just let it be, such behavior is so dominantly established, it only grows) > .dipping into the gutter. "insufferable snobbery" > . belligerent fight picking "systemic in-group exclusionary behavior" Your serve, please. Since Avri has professed eagerness to learn Hindi idioms, I can start with you who uses US political history for 'labeling' me - they say over here 'before you sit on a cot you should swipe under it with a stick to make sure there is not anything under it'. You may think about paying attention to this. Parminder _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:55 PM To: Singh, Parminder; McTim; Governance Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Parminder, I clearly was referring to John's point that >The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they >will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their >authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. >This policy has never changed, and their recent note >contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying >attention. That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message. I don't happen to agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ's 'adult supervision,' gave no indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary on this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of you. Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order to score cheap rhetorical points. I also noted that it's not appropriate for the coordinator to be attacking people and hurling around ideological labels. I stand by that, you are not just any subscriber to the list, you're the caucus coordinator so belligerent fight picking is unhelpful. BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing 'adult supervision,' they are talking about ICANN---the board, et al---needing oversight. It may not be the form of oversight you or I favor, but that's a legitimate and often expressed view that can be disputed on the merits without dipping into the gutter. In contrast, I didn't hear him saying that other countries are juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist seems a tad misplaced. Sorry to hear it brings blood to your head, particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. Or we could agree to disagree and move on to something more useful. Bill On 8/6/08 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >can only help this caucus come to an informed > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). (Mctim) McTim (and Bill) So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying the existing situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - saying, I "seriously distorted what was actually said") Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for anyone to check integrity of these quotes to the full text) "....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" (John) I read in the above a clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control the technical body that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the crucial global resource, the Internet. "There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside of ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but it ain't going to happen." (John) "So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, but don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." (John) The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the effort of all those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. Such derision does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given 'unchangeable' reality, it comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the need for US's 'adult supervision' when Milton wrote >Wow, John, >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia >for US control. (Milton) John replied with >if you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously obvious, I >doubt I can explain it. So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of other countries combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly partronising and (I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. You guys may be immune to such derogatory political allusions, but I am not. And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, especially among people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings a bit of blood to ones head. Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - "neo-imperialist", and whether it was appropriate. The first entry on Google search has this to say "Neo-imperialism refers to the dominance of some nations over others by means of unequal conditions of economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a very general way to view many of the new issues that are developing and will develop as our world grows smaller due to more effective communication and contact between foreign nations." If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is neo-imperialism, sitting over the central and one of the most important resources of the world - the Internet - and plainly refusing to be democratic and participative with the global community in its governance is extreme neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political advantages, does any one doubt that). And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and derides those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or you deny that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when one is the citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the meaning of the term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the sociology dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not name-calling, in that socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current socio-political description of normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then one has to defend against it on facts, and not mere social-inappropriateness. I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a social activist, to use the term again in similar circumstances. And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for John and corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and political choice. No problems for me, good luck. And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on the list what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, you said it first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on the list. (Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the list at various times in different exchanges with members so that we can decide what is appropriate and what not.) So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and superiority. This is all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our political proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever position you want to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sat Aug 9 04:47:30 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 01:47:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080809074120.092A9A6CA6@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> At the risk of extending what really is a tedious discussion... It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism" is being used in its "technical/scientific" mode as in for example (neo-Conservative) Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson's book "Empire: The Rise and Fall of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power" where he praises the US for accepting the (neo?) burdens of empire (dare one say "taking responsibility (acting as an adult??) for ICANN"), or, as an epithet as might be used for example by the Trotskyist denizens of the Spartacus Youth League when looking for the vilest and most cutting insult to hurl at a class enemy member of the Fourth International Revolutionary Marxists... I think that we should all take Parminder at his word that he was using the term in the first meaning above rather than the second, and move on... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: August 9, 2008 12:41 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Milton (and Bill and McTim may want to pay special attention) >While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move >forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in >DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, .......and conclude that it >(ICANN) needed >"adult supervision.">Why is he exempt from criticism here? Thanks for pointing this out. On 'productive ways' however, I cant see how 'my way' may have been much more or less productive than your 'critique'/ 'labeling' (as one may want to see it) in your response to Rui's emails on the issue of hate-speech websites :). While I cannot bring back the whole political passion that your email expresses, I will quote selectively from what Milton said about Rui's email(the original email is enclosed, for others) "This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear authoritarian....." In fact my 'neo-imperialist' email did the same comparison between an active political and passive one..... Only that Milton directly says that "it is far more dangerous than..." and I said much more mildly ' may really amount to the same" . I in fact also added a rider - " Unless, one is ready to explore or at least discuss reasonable options." Because, I of course have to speak with much more care than Milton. One, because Milton is speaking about freedom of expression, and I 'merely' about 'neo-imperialism' and second, ok, lets leave it for now.... And Milton feels quite free to proceed on and say.. "I don't see any difference in principle between this and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies." (Milton) "What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression." (milton) I understand that Milton takes it as a legitimate language of (maybe strong) political critique. And since Bill and McTim did not pounce on him when these statements are made right in the middle of their moralising to me, they must also think it is as legitimate political critique (which is to give the most chartable interpretation I can). I have no issues with Milton's descriptions, though I do not agree with him on the views that propel them, nor with the political critique contained therein. However, what at this point I am more interested in knowing is that how were my comments made about neo-imperialist views as a part of a serious and detailed political critique considered so reprehensible and Milton's above comments(and as I know many other such comments) not picked/ pounced on. Is it Bill that you choose the people you pounce on carefully, or else you choose the political positions you pounce on carefully... it has to one, so let me know which is it. Is it something about Milton and me, as persons, or is it that anti-authoritarian-ism is closer to your heart and anti-imperialism a distant consideration, if at all, or maybe, it is something else. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Singh, Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > > > I agree with McTim that this name calling is inappropriate, > particularly > > coming from our coordinator, and that it is seriously distorts what > was > > actually said. Post-JPA has been discussed here before and a number > of > > While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to > move forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political > forces in DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what > value US oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone > who had been at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult > supervision." Why is he exempt from criticism here? > > > > 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 > > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the > > caucus could try to do something productive for a change and develop > > a compelling alternative and promote it in a manner that is > > politically salient. > Then > > That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA > for the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG > can start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the > root and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the > JPA removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. > And we have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would > justify termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely > disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw > from this crowd. > > We can debate more radical independence measures later, after a few > post-JPA years and its review by the IGF.... > > > Then maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet > with > > me as to whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do > something in > > Well, at least I picked the primary winner correctly. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 06:46:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:46:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: Message-ID: <489C23E8.1B011CAB@ix.netcom.com> Bill and all, I am sorry that this thread has gone on this long, and yes, again sorry that I feel compelled to extend it a bit further, but I don't recall Parminder picking any fight or labeling anyone anything. He made a simple comparison, nothing more. So please lets all try to argue sensably and tone down the insults however camoflaged they may be or seem. William Drake wrote: > Parminder, > > On 8/9/08 9:41 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Is it Bill that you choose the people you pounce on > carefully, or else you > choose the political positions you pounce on carefully... it > has to one, so > let me know which is it. > > Neither, of course, but thanks for the usual rhetorical games. As I > and others have noted before, it’s just not appropriate for the > coordinator of the caucus to be belligerently picking fights and > calling people loaded names. Adam didn’t do it, Jeanette didn’t do > it, Avri didn’t do it, so why do you have to? The reasons not to are > obvious, it does the process no good at all. We’ve had this discussion > before to no effect so presumably such objections mean nothing to > you. That’s your choice, disagreeing with it is mine. > > On an unrelated note, I have in the past objected on the list to > Milton’s penchant for insulting verbiage, with equally zero effect. > But as he’s not the coordinator and complaints about it from others > are frequent enough, I don’t feel the need to chime in on each > occasion (although I did send him a private note about his exchange > with Rui). I don’t complain about most other rude messages either, > I’m not the school hall monitor. I just thought the coordinator > labeling someone a neoimperialist based on a misrepresentation of his > comment was especially egregious. > > Let’s please not waste any more time on this, nobody wants to read > this and we’re not going to persuade each other. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 06:58:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:58:24 -0700 Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080809083711.9A4AC67857@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <489C26D0.530B25A4@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, A well argued comparison, IMO. Of course I am very sure others will strongly, and in some underhanded ugly fashion, disagree. Such seems to be the preferred method of political discourse over the past 10 or so years. Sad commentary, eh? However given ICANN often-wrong methods and DOC/NTIA's less than adequate, sometimes skewed oversight at times as well, the disconnect deriving in the current state or affairs is what is the result. Now we need to try to make that better, not do constant finger pointing and he said/she said endlessly circular arguments. So again I pose my original question in response: Whom or what other than ICANN itself, or DOC/NTIA is well suited to oversee ICANN? I believe we have largely agreed that the UN and/or any of it's organs or affiliated organizations are not suited to do so. I believe that Syracuse EDU. also has been eliminated as an option. Any other suggestions? And if so, why would they be better suited? Parminder wrote: > Bill > > >BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing ‘adult > supervision,’ they are talking >about ICANN---the board, et > >al---needing oversight. > > (snip) > > >In contrast, I didn’t hear him saying that other countries are > juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and > neo->imperialist seems a tad misplaced. > > Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult > supervision of the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said > that --- developing country governments “in reality know that ICANN > desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision”. > > First of all this is a blatant untruth. Developing country governments > hate the principle of US’s unilateral political supervision of the > ICANN (and you know that). The people and civil society in these > countries (mostly) hate it even more. > > Second, to posit such a helpless dependency attitude as characterizing > developing countries (which as I said is untrue) is centrally and > strongly neo-imperialist. That’s the meaning of neo-imperialism. > Period. > > So, I consider it my political duty to offer my political critique to > such a position using the political-analytical language of current > usage. (And, I would go further to say, I am as justified in also > critiquing the apologists for the proponents of such views.) > > I do know it is not pleasant to be critiqued as holding > neo-imperialist views, but I am more bothered about the sensitivities > of the countries and people who are the butt of neo-imperialism rather > than the feelings of John Levine, if they be, inadvertently, touched > in the process. > > You can of course choose whose feelings you are more bothered about > depending upon personal or political preferences. But as I said, no > superiority here please. > > > particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. > > After you say, yes, I agree with McTim, when he proposes launching > official ‘inappropriate list behavior’ proceedings against me, and add > that I am seriously distorting what someone said on the list, you > expect that I should not explain myself in some detail but simple run > away and hide since ‘you have spoken’ and that should be it. > > And now for some personal epithets/ attacks you used against me and my > responses to them in terms of what, in that case, I may have to say > about you, (because if you just let it be, such behavior is so > dominantly established, it only grows) > > > dipping into the gutter > > “insufferable snobbery” > > > belligerent fight picking > > “systemic in-group exclusionary behavior” > > Your serve, please. > > Since Avri has professed eagerness to learn Hindi idioms, I can start > with you who uses US political history for ‘labeling’ me – they say > over here ‘before you sit on a cot you should swipe under it with a > stick to make sure there is not anything under it’. You may think > about paying attention to this. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:55 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; McTim; Governance > Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement > here > > Parminder, > > I clearly was referring to John’s point that > > >The US DOC has always made it crystal clear that they > >will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their > >authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN. > >This policy has never changed, and their recent note > >contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying > >attention. > > That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message. I don’t happen > to agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ’s ‘adult supervision,’ gave no > indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary > on this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of > you. Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order > to score cheap rhetorical points. > > I also noted that it’s not appropriate for the coordinator to be > attacking people and hurling around ideological labels. I stand by > that, you are not just any subscriber to the list, you’re the caucus > coordinator so belligerent fight picking is unhelpful. > > BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing ‘adult > supervision,’ they are talking about ICANN---the board, et > al---needing oversight. It may not be the form of oversight you or I > favor, but that’s a legitimate and often expressed view that can be > disputed on the merits without dipping into the gutter. In contrast, > I didn’t hear him saying that other countries are juvenile, so > characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist seems a > tad misplaced. Sorry to hear it brings blood to your head, > particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds. Or we could > agree to disagree and move on to something more useful. > > Bill > > > On 8/6/08 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > >can only help this caucus come to an informed > > perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks > (don't > > shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). > (Mctim) > > McTim (and Bill) > > So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying the > existing > situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - saying, I > "seriously distorted what was actually said") > > Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for anyone to > check > integrity of these quotes to the full text) > > "....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" (John) > > I read in the above a > clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that > the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control the > technical body > that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the crucial > global > resource, the Internet. > > > "There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside > of > ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but > it > ain't going to happen." (John) > > "So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, > but > don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." (John) > > The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the effort of > all > those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. Such > derision > does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given 'unchangeable' > reality, it > comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. > > And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the need for > US's > 'adult supervision' when Milton wrote > > >Wow, John, > >It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am > >wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia > > >for US control. (Milton) > > John replied with > > >if you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously > obvious, I > >doubt I can explain it. > > So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of other > countries > combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly partronising > and > (I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. > > You guys may be immune to such derogatory political allusions, but I > am not. > And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, especially > among > people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings a bit of > blood > to ones head. > > Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - "neo-imperialist", and > whether > it was appropriate. > > The first entry on Google search has this to say "Neo-imperialism > refers to > the dominance of some nations over others by means of unequal > conditions of > economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a very general > way to > view many of the new issues that are developing and will develop as > our > world grows smaller due to more effective communication and contact > between > foreign nations." > > If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is > neo-imperialism, > sitting over the central and one of the most important resources of > the > world - the Internet - and plainly refusing to be democratic and > participative with the global community in its governance is extreme > neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political advantages, > does > any one doubt that). > > And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and > derides > those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or you > deny > that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when one > is the > citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the meaning of > the > term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the sociology > dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not name-calling, in that > socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current socio-political > description of > normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then one has to > > defend against it on facts, and not mere social-inappropriateness. > > I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a social > activist, > to use the term again in similar circumstances. > > And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for John and > corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and political > choice. No > problems for me, good luck. > > And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on the > list > what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of > > 'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, you said > it > first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on the list. > > (Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the list at > various > times in different exchanges with members so that we can decide what > is > appropriate and what not.) > > So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and superiority. > This is > all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our political > > proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever position you > want > to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 9 09:45:38 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:45:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489D9F82.3030703@wzb.eu> > > Let’s please not waste any more time on this, nobody wants to read this > and we’re not going to persuade each other. I guess this is very true. I for one had decided to stop reading these laborious exegetic exercises that seem to aim only for being proved right. Since this cannot be achieved on this list anyway, why not stop trying. jeanette > > 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 icggov at johnlevine.com Sat Aug 9 10:49:56 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Aug 2008 14:49:56 -0000 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080809083711.9A4AC67857@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080809144956.68381.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision of >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- developing >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the >DOC's adult supervision". Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing country governments? Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if you could have made a real argument instead. Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste time rather than to address governance issues. 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 nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 9 11:16:12 2008 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? Message-ID: <708779.78758.qm@web34605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Atanu, I appreciate the presentation of the case for universal accessibility required of the ISO standards on IT proccesses. I endorse your comment that the open access domain use of the same fulfils the objectivity of the ISO itself, that is, if it really cares to operate its own mandate. I sure appeal all readers to think aloud on this issue. Sincerely, =Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Financial Investment Adviser Tel: 91-821-2342612; 0091 9449323325 ----- Original Message ---- From: atanu garai To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 8:11:50 PM Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? The International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative that members of the public have access to those standards so that those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and contribution from the national standards organizations which are part of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income comes from membership fees (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible for all internet users and making these standards available openly accessible can further augment development of standardised public systems. Atanu Garai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 19:37:59 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:37:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <489D9F82.3030703@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <489CD8D6.A517D542@ix.netcom.com> Jeanette and all, Excellent suggestion, IMO! Although I believe the relevant facts have proven to a reasonable but not legal extent that Parminder was and remains not guilty. It's also clear to me anyway, that some here are not satisfied with that logical conclusion. Again what's more important is what this thread was originally all about. That being whom/what should replace DOC/NTIA to the extent that such is necessary or largely desired? Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Let’s please not waste any more time on this, nobody wants to read this > > and we’re not going to persuade each other. > > I guess this is very true. I for one had decided to stop reading these > laborious exegetic exercises that seem to aim only for being proved > right. Since this cannot be achieved on this list anyway, why not stop > trying. > jeanette > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 8 19:51:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:51:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080809144956.68381.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <489CDC1A.EA2D5BF4@ix.netcom.com> John and all, FWIW, I also share your amazement. John Levine wrote: > >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision of > >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- developing > >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the > >DOC's adult supervision". > > Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing > country governments? > > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > you could have made a real argument instead. > > Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste > time rather than to address governance issues. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 9 20:18:43 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:18:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> Michael Gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism"... Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain "facts-of-life" come to my mind: 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to move from the US any time soon. 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall election this year. 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like better.) That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and obviating any single overlord of names on 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 9 00:15:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:15:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <489D19CB.36946080@ix.netcom.com> Karl and all, Percisely! For better or worse, there really isn't an alternitive government entity that can step in for DOC/NTIA even if they are not as good at doing the oversight that one would prefer. Karl Auerbach wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism"... > > Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) > > As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and > shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain > "facts-of-life" come to my mind: > > 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal > authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my > government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion > that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) > > 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal > authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to > impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California > which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN > were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, > which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to > move from the US any time soon. > > 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much > impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply > overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of > US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US > gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being > labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult > supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect > that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall > election this year. > > 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and > that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our > fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): > > There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, > consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the > proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of > TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used > today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP > don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like > better.) > > That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line > with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is > only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and > obviating any single overlord of names on 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 9 00:37:21 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:37:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model.] Message-ID: <489D1F01.2F010066@ix.netcom.com> All, As an FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model. Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:34:20 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Hong Xue ,NameCritic ,at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org References: <489DB449.9050507 at vande-walle.eu><54535d540808091503k51f6fd61w9050270d7483197c at mail.gmail.com><008401c8fa80$a76ebf30$0201a8c0 at namecritic> <54535d540808091829x456983e6t38f57633bd7d813f at mail.gmail.com> Hong and all, I would agree. But that's not the "ICANN Way", and never has been, and will not likely be unless or until they are forced to do so. Only DOC/NTIA can accomplish such, which is also not likely but does provide a ray of hope. ICANN needs/wants lots of $$. Auctioning off gTLD's or IDN gTLD's is a good way of accumulating a goodly sum in a fairly short period of time. My silent inside sources today have told me this is already a "Done Deal". The announcment was only to give the appearance that such is only now a consideration up for discussion/debate. A debate rat hole. Happy rat hole chasing/discussing/debating! >:) Hong Xue wrote: > What Chris said reminds me of the ALAC statement at the ICANN Public Forum: > ICANN should encourage the IDN gTLDs be run by the small-scale, > non-commercial and language community-base registries. But under the auction > model, these applicants will be simply out of the question. > > Hong > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM, NameCritic wrote: > > > I couldn't agree more and in addition to that, ICANN's staff and BoD seems > > to think the only viable business plan for a registry or TLD owner is to > > sell domain names. What if a person has different goals or a business plan > > that is unique and not just money-motivated, yet they prove they can manage > > a TLD from a technical standpoint? > > > > They could be giving domain names away and it should not matter to ICANN > > and ICANN should not assume they know a good business plan from a bad one. > > It is not their function, nor is it their strong suit to evaluate business > > plans. > > > > Even those in the past who thought they were qualified to do so shot down > > business plans because they did not see them as a standard type of plan or > > one they thought would work. Take Xerox giving away their technlogy for > > computer interface or hewlett packard turning down the pc or IBM passing up > > opportunities in the software business. > > > > When ICANN puts itself into the position of having to approve the business > > plan of a prospective TLD owner, they put themselves in the liable position > > of having approved that business plan should it fail. If they do not approve > > someone's business plan, then they are restricting free enterprise and free > > trade by not allowing them to try it. > > > > ICANN's process of approving TLDs and putting prohibitive costs on the > > process is flawed and favors large business over small business. This is not > > fair to small business owners and those at ICANN know it. > > > > Years ago, the federal gov approved 60 million dollars to remodel houses in > > downtown Philadelphia. They told the city that they could have the money > > only if they also allowed small contractors to bid on those jobs rather than > > just the big companies. The city agreed. Then behind closed doors, after > > accepting the money, they decided to add a stipulation. That anyone could > > bid those jobs, but they would have to pay for all the materials and labor > > out of pocket and wait one year after completion to be reimbursed by the > > city. They knew full well this meant that small contractors would not be > > able to do so. > > > > ICANN, by charging such a high fee is barring small business owners from > > creating their own TLD while they tell everyoine it is open to everyone. > > It's a scam. > > > > Chris McElroy > > Dot SEO TLD > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hong Xue" > > To: > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 6:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation > > andauctioning model. > > > > > > > > Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD > >> process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or > >> shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the > >> economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, > >> such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on > >> selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical > >> Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more > >> important > >> and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been > >> precisely stated by Vittorio: > >> > >> Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that > >> counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly > >> connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of > >> the > >> Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is > >> how > >> strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD > >> contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group > >> of > >> people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD > >> will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None > >> of > >> these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing > >> to > >> me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce > >> global > >> public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, > >> still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of > >> the > >> Internet itself lies. > >> Hong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle > >> >> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > >>> > >>> ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > >>> regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > >>> contention. > >>> > >>> http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > >>> > >>> I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > >>> proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > >>> the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > >>> possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > >>> in such context. > >>> > >>> The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > >>> some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > >>> will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > >>> > >>> A public forum has been established at > >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > >>> Comments to auction-consultation at icann.org before 8 September 2008. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Patrick Vande Walle > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> At-Large mailing list > >>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> At-Large mailing list > >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.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 Sun Aug 10 09:40:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080809144956.68381.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <20080810134146.4DEAD67846@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > you could have made a real argument instead. John (With "around here" you mean 'in the US', right?) So, you are attacking my culture now. Sorry to say this, but I think you are losing all sense of basic decency. You may have a case that I am personally doing something undesirable or even obnoxious, but what do you mean by "> Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here,....". You are basically saying that this particular "obnoxious-ness" may be in my culture. If I go to some other part of multi-cultural India and say - 'cultural norms differ, and I don't know how it is in your culture, but in my culture we do things sensibly and honorably' I am likely to invite mob violence. I request IGC members to take note to the above utterance of John Levine, and give their views on it, before I mention how I characterize it, because he seems to have friends in high places on this list and I need to guard my words much more than the regular list posters do. I did wait a whole day before I report this, hoping that someone else will. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision > of > >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- > developing > >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the > >DOC's adult supervision". > > Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing > country governments? > > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > you could have made a real argument instead. > > Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste > time rather than to address governance issues. > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Aug 10 10:05:44 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:05:44 +0300 Subject: vote on "Sense of the Caucus" (was Re: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here) Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Parminder wrote: > > >> Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man >> arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if >> you could have made a real argument instead. > > John > > (With "around here" you mean 'in the US', right?) I think he meant "on Internet mailing lists". > > So, you are attacking my culture now. Sorry to say this, but I think you are > losing all sense of basic decency. I think that you are a tad too sensitive. > > You may have a case that I am personally doing something undesirable or even > obnoxious, but what do you mean by "> Perhaps cultural norms differ, but > around here,....". > see above. I took it to mean that on listservs "attacking straw man arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if you could have made a real argument instead." > You are basically saying that this particular "obnoxious-ness" may be in my > culture. see above. > > If I go to some other part of multi-cultural India and say - 'cultural norms > differ, and I don't know how it is in your culture, but in my culture we do > things sensibly and honorably' I am likely to invite mob violence. Well, maybe that proves the point you have tried to attribute to him? > > I request IGC members to take note to the above utterance of John Levine, > and give their views on it, before I mention how I characterize it, too late, you have already characterised it! because > he seems to have friends in high places on this list and I need to guard my > words much more than the regular list posters do. yes, you do, see Bill's post about this. Perhaps a useful way to move forward is to have a vote on a general direction the caucus would like to move on this issue. Since, thanks to IGP folk, we have web voting possibilities, we can have multiple choices, from this thread, we seem to have these general positions: A) take the DOC at their word that they will never under any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and, hence, over ICANN, and that caucus efforts to change this will be unproductive. B) it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether managed benignly or not. It has to change C) it might be useful to see what could be done, in cooperation with other interested stakeholders, to bring about that which should happen no matter how much DOC says it won't. D) Enhanced cooperation - EC E) The IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc power. F) For the next review of the JPA, have list members tell the NTIA how we could have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of security, stability, and control in the last instance as now. G) for ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative authorisation structure with the UN, create another A root H) ICANN MOU with the UN I) terminating the JPA J) internet can have multiple, consistent root systems K) None of the above L) ?? M)?? What have I missed (insert as L and M) ? Of course, one could vote for as many of the above as one wanted. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Aug 10 10:20:01 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:20:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <489EF911.2000508@rits.org.br> As usual, a well done summary of the situation by Karl. I have been in favor of a "network model" for the DNS, since I started dealing with these themes in the early nineties, as opposed to the centralized one we have today (considered by the powers-that-be as irreplaceable paradigm, to the point that many techies with plenty of post-docs in their CVs tremble at the mere mention of challenging it, like "the world is obviously flat!"). But it is clear to me that extra-technical factors impose the continuity of the current paradigm (with technical explanations conveniently seduced to defend it). BTW, Verisign is traded in NASDAQ and is pretty small (it recently dropped from the Fortune-1000 companies' list) compared to the multibillion-dollar transactions we see today among transnational conglomerates. It could very well be controlled by a financial speculator from Qatar, China, Russia, or even Brazil :) A curious way of moving power over ICANN away from the USA. After all, those "aliens" are buying other US companies, including some US banks! Who knows, maybe they already own Verisign, which is attractive not necessarily because it is a gTLD near-monopoly which keeps its regulator on leash, but because it has a relevant e-certification business. --c.a. Karl Auerbach wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term >> "neo-imperialism"... > > Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) > > As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and > shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain > "facts-of-life" come to my mind: > > 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal > authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my > government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion > that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) > > 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal > authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to > impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California > which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN > were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, > which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to > move from the US any time soon. > > 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much > impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply > overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of > US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US > gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being > labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult > supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect > that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall > election this year. > > 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and > that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our > fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): > > There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, > consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the > proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of > TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used > today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP > don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like > better.) > > That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line > with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is > only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and > obviating any single overlord of names on 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 10 10:19:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:49:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections - candidate bios Message-ID: <20080810142055.D838767825@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All Below are the brief bios of David Goldstein and Ian Peter, the two candidates for the co-coordinator election. They are listed here as submitted by them on my request for brief bios. I will post more information on the voting process in a little while. Parminder David Goldstein David has been involved in a range of internet governance issues over the last 13 years dealing with domain names, child protection and filtering issues and working with government and non-government organisations. Today David compiles an online media clipping service dealing with internet governance issues with clients including ICANN, auDA, Denic, InternetNZ, SWITCH, nic.at, Telnic, CoCCA and others. His strengths are researching, writing and analysis along with a good knowledge of internet governance issues. Ian Peter Ian Peter moved from a career in media and in the origins of community radio in Australia to setting up a global rainforest activist network in the early 1980s. An early adopter of pre-Internet global computer networks, he became involved in both UN and Internet initiatives in 1985, when he was commissioned by United Nations Environment Program to establish an Asian on line network of non-government organizations. In 1989 he established Pegasus Networks offering access to email and Internet services, with a focus on NGO communications. It grew to employ over 30 people. In the same year he was a founding director of the Association for Progressive Communications (www.apc.org ). By 1992, just before most people began to experience the World Wide Web, Ian Peter established a consultancy business to address growing interest in Internet and new technologies. As Principal Consultant and Project Manager he undertook assignments advising government, industry and international organizations, including both UN and internet governance organisations. During the 1990s Ian Peter established an award winning Internet History portal at www.nethistory.info . He first became involved in Internet governance discussions in the lead up to the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (www.wsis.org ) and has been involved with the Internet Governance Caucus ever since. He has held a number of honorary positions including as a member of the inaugural .ORG Advisory Council and on the Editorial Board of First Monday (www.firstmonday.org). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 10 11:00:38 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:30:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080809144956.68381.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <20080810150051.0DAC8E114B@smtp3.electricembers.net> > >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision > of > >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- > developing > >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the > >DOC's adult supervision". > Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing > country governments? John This is what you said... "....although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle from some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision." The "some' governments protesting ICANN's supervision by the US, from my knowledge of this area, which is reasonably good, is mostly developing countries. I also think that everyone knows this, but if you insist on substantiation of the point it can be done by looking back over the preparatory meetings for IGF Rio to see which all governments spoke most for getting ICANN issues into IGF agenda, and which were quite, and even subtly opposed. And when the Brazilian minister declared somewhat dramatically at Rio IGF's opening that 'it is time to move on in global IG arrangements' everyone knows which governments were "not amused" and which chuckled. ........ So, one deduces by widely known and accepted facts. That's natural. In any case, if you didn't mean developing countries at all, strange though it would be in light of the 'known facts', why don't you just say that and tell us which are these 'some' governments. Then we will have something to discuss about. attacking straw man > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > you could have made a real argument instead. Did you NOT say that the governments that 'outwardly' protest - which I know as per above are mostly developing country governments - "really know" that they can not do without US's supervision of the ICANN, which invited my political characterization of such an view. I will like to clearly hear that from you, rather than this superior-posturing, using subtle personal characterizations, that I had recently the opportunity to write in some detail about. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision > of > >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- > developing > >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the > >DOC's adult supervision". > > Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing > country governments? > > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > you could have made a real argument instead. > > Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste > time rather than to address governance issues. > > 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 Sun Aug 10 11:32:01 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 10 Aug 2008 15:32:01 -0000 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080810153201.26650.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >"....although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle from >some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately needs the >DOC's adult supervision." > >The "some' governments protesting ICANN's supervision by the US, from my >knowledge of this area, which is reasonably good, is mostly developing >countries. Nope. This would be a very good time to stop trying to stuff straw men into other people's mouths. 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 avri at psg.com Sun Aug 10 11:39:54 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:39:54 -0400 Subject: vote on "Sense of the Caucus" (was Re: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Interesting idea, but i think it would take more then a name of an idea to know how to choose. E.g. what does enhanced cooperation mean? it takes more then a name to represent an idea. now if the proponents of each of these ideas were to take the time to explain what they mean and how it would work, we might have a worthwhile polling exercise. some might argue that this is a waste of effort since this narrow topic is not the important one or not one we can do anything about. i am not sure whether i actually agree or not, what i do believe is that topic is the political gorilla in the room and under we reach some closure on it, we are not going to move on to all the other pressing issues. while this issue, the USG unilateral control on the root, remains a issue that divides us between those who think it is a US finger to the world and those who believe it is the only possible solution for security and stability we do not seem to be going anywhere. this is true for the small microcosm of the IGC as well. so maybe after we finish the elections and before we start the election to renew/replace PS it might be interesting to see where we fall in this discussion. how do those who do not write messages statiscally feel on this subject? i would be curious to know. a. On 10 Aug 2008, at 10:05, McTim wrote: > > > Perhaps a useful way to move forward is to have a vote on a general > direction the caucus would like to move on this issue. Since, thanks > to IGP folk, we have web voting possibilities, we can have multiple > choices, from this thread, we seem to have these general positions: > > A) take the DOC at their word that they will never under > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > and, hence, over ICANN, and that caucus efforts to change this will be > unproductive. > > B) it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether > managed benignly or not. It has to change > > C) it might be useful to see what could be done, in cooperation with > other interested stakeholders, to bring about that which should happen > no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > D) Enhanced cooperation - EC > > E) The IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have > possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc > power. > > F) For the next review of the JPA, have list members tell the NTIA > how we could have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of > security, stability, and control in the last instance as now. > > G) for ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative > authorisation structure with the UN, create another A root > > H) ICANN MOU with the UN > > I) terminating the JPA > > J) internet can have multiple, consistent root systems > > K) None of the above > > L) ?? > > M)?? > > What have I missed (insert as L and M) ? > > Of course, one could vote for as many of the above as one wanted. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.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 Sun Aug 10 12:02:40 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:02:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> On 9 Aug 2008, at 20:18, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have > multiple, consistent root systems, each offering up its own > perception of the proper set of top level domains (disputes over > conflicts of names of TLDs would be handled by exactly the same > international mechanisms used today to deal with global brand names, > and besides, if you or your ISP don't like what one root zone offers > you can simply use one you like better.) > > That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in > line with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. > It is only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening > and obviating any single overlord of names on the internet. i find it hard to believe it is just mental blocks that have stopped this from happening. the more i think about it the more questions i have (and i hope the powers that be forgive me for taking this taboo subject seriously) assuming it is not just mental block that prevents anyone from doing this, how come it hasn't happened? why do all those frustrated by ICANN, or turned off by the exaggerated pricing we are bound to see for new TLDs, still supplicating at ICANN's door. - lack of political will? why do all those frustrated governments keeping waiting for USG/ICANN blessing? - people do not believe it is technically possible? i.e. it is easy to say if can be done technically, but has anyone really laid out a plan and showed how it can work - running code and all of that? - some really good reason we are missing? another question i have, would this be yet another mechanism that would allow for restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of communication? would ISPs become the new arbiter of who we would have access to? i.e my provider could restricted me to the family friendly DNS? or would it be possible for users to pick any DNS tree, or mixture of DNS trees, they wished? could this model bring us a new form of provider, the global DNS provider, who gave use unfettered access to all possible roots? it is an interesting idea that you and others have been talking about for yeas, yet i never see more discussion of it then a idea presented and then ignored. why is that? i know you have your own ideas on TLDs and even have your own .ewe (love the name) . why has it not flown yet and why is it not breaking this ground open - especially if it is such a fertile field and an obvious solution? - does the whole idea just need a good business plan? or do you really believe it just needs a paradigm shift.? 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 Sun Aug 10 13:11:29 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:41:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator elections Message-ID: <20080810171145.124EBA6C55@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All In a short time after receiving this email all list participants who were subscribed to the list as on June 7th, 2008, will receive an email from Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn, (email id dcogburn at syr.edu ) with the subject line 'IGC Co-Coordinator Election Ballot'. It will contain the information on voting for the co-coordinator, with a link to web based ballot. You may cast the vote anytime before 10 AM GMT on the 18th August. I am once again sharing below information about the voting process that I shared a few days ago. Any list participant who was subscribed to this list as on June 7th, 2008, but does not receive the ballot may please write to me. If you receive multiple emails for the election ballot please only use one of them, and let us know about the multiple ids. Thanks Parminder The voting for a new co-coordinator of IGC to replace Vittorio will take place through a web based system between 10th and 17th August. The result will be announced on the 19th. The two candidates are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, whom I thank for volunteering for this important organizational responsibility. The co-coordinator will be elected for a period of two years. The voting will be conducted by me, as directed by the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), with the help of Dr Derrick Cogburn of Syracuse University who has offered the software he has earlier used for GigaNet elections, and also to administer the voting process. Each person subscribed to the governance list as on June 7th 2008 ( i.e. two months prior to the start of the election process) will be sent an email with information on the voting process, conditions etc along with a unique web-link that takes the person to a secure website. The list subscriber will then be given the option to affirm/ accept membership of the caucus by subscribing to the charter (as per the charter's provisions for the voting process). On such positive affirmation, the person will be taken to the ballot page where the vote can be cast by ticking against one of the two candidates. A 'none of the above' option will also be available. A vote once cast cannot be changed. While we strongly encourage everyone to vote as a sign of ones active engagement with the caucus, voting is not compulsory for retaining caucus membership, i.e. if one is already on the caucus members list ( see www.igcaucus.org/members-080721.html ). However, it is important to note that, as per the charter's provisions on charter amendments, one has to have voted in the previous election to be able to vote at any charter amendment process. Therefore, to have voting rights in any charter amendment process (but not for any other voting process) that may come before the next election, one HAS to vote in this election. As per the charter, all voting will be open, unless specifically declared to be secret, for which reason(s) have to be stated. I declare that the present voting will be secret. The reason for this is that the process involves individuals making a choice between two colleague individuals and that has the likelihood of leaving an avoidable trace on inter-personal relationships in the group. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no special imperatives of transparency and openness, in this case, which will be met by an open vote. The voting process is completely anonymous, no names are associated with the voting. The IP address is captured and stored in a database, but is not accessed by the voting process administrator (Derrick). Derrick, but not I, will be able to see the aggregated results as they come in, However, to repeat, no one will be able to see or know any voter's specific voting choice. Derrick will technically be able to access information on whether anyone has cast one's vote or not. This information will however not actually be accessed during the process At the end of the process, on the 19th, along with the result, a list of voters will be published. Those among them who are not currently on the members' list will be added to the standing list since during the process of voting they would have accepted membership by subscribing to the charter. The elected co-coordinator will take charge immediately on the announcement of the result, and Vittorio will cease to be a co-coordinator. I also declare that I have satisfied myself about the security and trustworthiness of the voting process, to the levels that in my understanding are required and adequate for the current purpose. The email creating a voters account will be sent out on 10th August and the voting will close at midnight - 10 AM GMT on the 18th of August. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 10 13:38:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:08:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080810153201.26650.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <20080810173844.0B9C2E14CE@smtp3.electricembers.net> > > > >The "some' governments protesting ICANN's supervision by the US, from my > >knowledge of this area, which is reasonably good, is mostly developing > >countries. > > Nope. This would be a very good time to stop trying to stuff straw > men into other people's mouths. If one says 'all the countries' or even 'the countries' protesting US lordship on the ICANN it may include most non-US countries, because all of them may oppose it to some level or other. However if you say 'some governments' that protest this lordship, it would , normally in a dialogue with a global scope, be taken to mean mostly developing countries, because they are the clearest, strongest and most vocal opponents. I gave you some proofs of this in my earlier email. It is however a very different matter if the constellation of your analysis only considers developed countries. This is something that I did not suspect, which, in the circumstance of the global-ness of this mailing list, I think cant be held against me. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here > > >"....although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle > from > >some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately needs the > >DOC's adult supervision." > > > >The "some' governments protesting ICANN's supervision by the US, from my > >knowledge of this area, which is reasonably good, is mostly developing > >countries. > > Nope. This would be a very good time to stop trying to stuff straw > men into other people's mouths. > > 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 10 14:09:00 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:09:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> Message-ID: <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: >> There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, >> consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the >> proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of >> TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms >> used today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or >> your ISP don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one >> you like better.) ... > assuming it is not just mental block that prevents anyone from doing > this, how come it hasn't happened? It has happened - there have been competing root systems for years. And many people use a variation of the idea without knowing it by virtue of ISP's intercepting DNS queries and vectoring them to their own servers. The problem why competing roots have not grown to be visible (or financially viable) is based on a number of factors: 1. Most of 'em are run by people who seem to want to play games rather than run a solid operation. As an experiment I used one of these, even though it was not solidly run, for several years for myself and my company. There were zero problems (except for the .biz conflict, but that was caused by ICANN intentionally disregarding a pre-existing and operating TLD of that name) until one of the folks running one of the servers decided to operate outside the limits of the domain name RFCs. 2. The technical system composed of NTIA/ICANN/Versisign building a root zone file and the legacy root operators publishing that zone is run with intense professionalism and extremely high quality. It is a class-act (I hope that's not too much of an American idiom). But there are quality operations - http://european.ch.orsn.net/ And there was once a very cool bit of web-based software called "grass roots". What it was was a website that listed all of the various TLDs that people have, such as my own .ewe. As a user you went through and selected which TLDs you wanted in your constellation and, if any were in dispute, which particular choice among the disputants. The website generated a zone file that one could use to load bind and, voila, one could run without recourse to any root system at all - all of the root information was in your own servers. The website remembered your choices so, if a TLD updated its list of servers or otherwise changed, you could easily generate a new zone file. When I talk about competing roots, I mention "consistency". Consistency is *very* important. People as users and people as publishers of network resources would not like being surprised and discovering that the names they use and utter don't work right. Some people define "consistency" as precise equivalence of TLDs in root zone. (ORSN does this although they reserve the right to retain a TLD, such as for example, .su, should ICANN remove it from their own root zone.) I tend to define "consistency" more broadly. In my definition, two root zones are consistent if for each TLD they contain the delegation information is equivalent. Thus every TLD they contain in common is backed by the same TLD servers and thus identical data. My definition allows each operator of a system of root servers to offer their own blend of TLDs in the root zone file they publish. This is a key point. Because by allowing each root operator to choice the inventory of TLDs being offered we create a path for new aspiring TLDs to try to gain a place in the sun. Some aspiring TLDs will find that they can not convince any root operator to include their "product"; those TLDs will die. Some aspiring TLDs will convince some root operators to include their product. Those TLDs will, for as long as they are in only a few roots, be boutique TLDs. But being a boutique TLD is not to say that it is a useless TLD. Various groups, religious, educational, or whatever, may find it useful to set up their own TLD and all the members use whatever root publishes their TLD. Some aspiring TLDs may grow to such demand that root operators will chose to incorporate them as a mater of course - we can anticipate that the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign suite of about 250 TLDs will be in this category. Some aspiring TLDs will not wait to be chosen but will pay root operators to include their product into those operator's list of TLDs. (One a TLD has become one of the must-have ones it is conceivable that the situation could turn around and that the root operator must pay the TLD for the right to publish that TLD.) Getting to disputes over names: These will certainly arise. TLDs with the same name are tainted goods, no rational root system operator would want these in its inventory - such TLDs are going to cause user confusion and raise trouble for the root operator. Consequently, those TLDs that are in dispute are going to have trouble finding a place to exist and will thus have an incentive to resolve the dispute. And as for forums to resolve disputes: The worldwide system that resolves disputes over product names, trade and service marks, is quite usable to resolve disputes between those who are trying to run different TLDs under the same name. Yes it is a system that is full of lawyers and other denizens of the darkness, but it is a system that works and is no less fair than ICANN's UDRP and certainly has the very important characteristic of being already in operation and pretty much universally accepted. In other words we don't need to create an overlord of names to resolve disputes over TLD names: we already have a distributed system that stands ready and able to do the task. So, as you can see, if we had competing, consistent roots those who want to try their hand and risk their money on building a new TLD can do so. They will, like anyone marking a new product, have to fight to "build their brand" by getting shelf-space in the inventory offered by root operators. But that's simply the normal facts of life for normal kinds of products. And some of those TLD products will be shoddy or badly run. And here we get to the question whether ICANN is a consumer protection agency? Is it (and if so, it is rather odd in the way it ejects those consumers it purports to protect from its forums of decision-making.) If we can presume that domain name buyers have enough brains to pick and chose among TLD offerings then our level of governance is merely to require that TLD providers publish enough information for buyers to make rational choices, in other words TLDs should be required to publish something akin to the kind of all-revealing prospectus that we here in the US get for offerings of financial securities. And that there be long-enough contracts for those buyers to lock-in those promises. Sure, some TLDs will collapse leaving owners of names in those TLDs with useless names. Again, do we want to create a worldwide body of consumer protection (an uber-ICANN) or do we want to way, as we say with airline tickets, if you buy from a shaky airline and it collapses leaving you with worthless tickets, well, too bad for you? People who want to build rock-solid names will tend to remain in .com, .org, and .net. Some new TLDs will aspire to build a reputation good enough to attract those customers. But some new TLDs may specialize in short-term registrations: A name for a month to handle a one-time town meeting for example. A collapse of that kind of TLD will not be a catastrophe. > - lack of political will? why do all those frustrated governments > keeping waiting for USG/ICANN blessing? Government people, like most people, crave the known and fear the unknown. Given the quality of the operation run by the legacy root server folks - people who deserve internet angelic status - there is little incentive from the point of view of governments to change. ICANN gives ccTLDs a lot of leeway. Governments have their ccTLDs, they are sated. > - people do not believe it is technically possible? i.e. it is easy to > say if can be done technically, but has anyone really laid out a plan > and showed how it can work - running code and all of that? I ran my own machines and those of my company using various other root systems, including one of those "grass roots" setups for several years while actively looking for problems. There were none (until one operator decided that he could violate the RFCs by putting character string IP addresses rather than host names into NS records.) Having competing roots offers a significant increment in internet safety - it removes a single point of failure (the single root) and allows users (or more likely their ISPs) to chose the root that works best and, if that goes awry, to change to another. The bigger question is where does the money come from to lubricate this system so that it can run? Turns out that there is a lot of data mining gold in DNS query streams. (People do not realize that ICANN's contracts specifically allow TLD operators to data mine the query traffic. And one can make a guess that various governmental agencies in some countries are rather interested in, and willing to pay for, "intelligence" data or "law enforcement" information that they can derive from the queries.) As I have been reminded by John L., because of caching a lot more interesting data can be gleaned from TLD server than from a root server. However, there still remains a lot of value that can be gained by sitting at a root and watching the queries (remember, name queries received by roots tend to contain the entire domain name being resolved). Sure, the idea that our queries are being monetized is scary, but it is already permissible under ICANN's contracts. > another question i have, would this be yet another mechanism that would > allow for restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of > communication? would ISPs become the new arbiter of who we would have > access to? i.e my provider could restricted me to the family friendly DNS? Yes, an ISP that wants to offer a shrunken DNS could do so; but I would suggest that an ISP that wants to do this already can find plenty of tools to do this even in a single-root world. I would submit that having competing, consistent roots, gives users more opportunities to bypass such restrictive ISPs and removes the more fearful worry of a worldwide central authority from imposing its moral or cultural views on *all* DNS everywhere - we already saw this kind of thing in a small way with .xxx in which a small fundamentalist religious group in the US manipulated the US executive dept to tickle the Dept of Commerce to stomp out .xxx no matter whether the community said it was good or not. > or would it be possible for users to pick any DNS tree, or mixture of > DNS trees, they wished? I'm not suggesting changing the DNS protocols, so mixing of trees would not be possible. > could this model bring us a new form of provider, the global DNS > provider, who gave use unfettered access to all possible roots? That itself would be a new root that simply aggregated every TLD that it saw, modulo those in dispute. > it is an interesting idea that you and others have been talking about > for yeas, yet i never see more discussion of it then a idea presented > and then ignored. why is that? i know you have your own ideas on TLDs > and even have your own .ewe (love the name) . why has it not flown yet > and why is it not breaking this ground open - especially if it is such a > fertile field and an obvious solution? I really have not had time to get the registration system of .ewe in place; I'm working too hard on network testing and troubleshooting tools. People can see the skeleton of the idea at: http://www.cavebear.com/eweregistry/ > - does the whole idea just need a good business plan? Yes, but it also needs ICANN to refrain from things like ICP-3. That kind of thing can be construed as interference, potentially unlawful interference, with the business plans of those who aspire to build TLDs and roots outside of the ICANN system. What ICANN does via ICP-3 is a lot like Microsoft and Apple publishing an official joint statement that declares Linux to be a danger to all computer users and something that must not be permitted. > or do you really believe it just needs a paradigm shift.? Well, this new set of DNS attacks are certainly revealing some deep cracks in the architecture of DNS. And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC affects this. --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 avri at psg.com Sun Aug 10 17:36:26 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:36:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: thanks for the complete answer. another question? > > And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC > affects this. doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model out? 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Aug 10 17:56:52 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:56:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> Message-ID: <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> No, in my view. Countries are already running DNSSEC for subdomains of their ccTLDs independently of the root. --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > thanks for the complete answer. another question? > >> >> And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC affects >> this. > > > doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved > root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model out? > > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 10 22:26:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:26:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: References: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E014@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Internet. The chances of something really bad happening would be much > > higher, e.g., a bunch of small countries gang up and demand that each > > country gets the same number of IP addresses, or something else that > > has superficial political appeal but would be technically disastrous. > > not to mention not physically possible, as countries don't "get" IP > addresses, organisations do. McTim, there is nothing "physically impossible" about delegating IP addresses to nations first. We probably agree that it is politically undesirable, but don't make the mistake of trying to make a policy point by making false technical claims. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:00:10 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:00:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <20080810134146.4DEAD67846@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <489E91FA.735B6BEE@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Frankly, I got the impression that John argued himself into a circle. Further, John's associations with whomever is of little consequence to me, and never will be. Parminder, I don't have the impresion that you are in any way obnoxious in any way what so ever. You have an opinion as most thinking people do. Nothing what so ever wrong with that, even if I or anyone else disagrees. I never really liked "Yes Men" as it were, and likely never will. Reasoned decision making however skewed, is far more preferable, even if that reasoned decision differs from my own. Parminder wrote: > > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > > you could have made a real argument instead. > > John > > (With "around here" you mean 'in the US', right?) > > So, you are attacking my culture now. Sorry to say this, but I think you are > losing all sense of basic decency. > > You may have a case that I am personally doing something undesirable or even > obnoxious, but what do you mean by "> Perhaps cultural norms differ, but > around here,....". > > You are basically saying that this particular "obnoxious-ness" may be in my > culture. > > If I go to some other part of multi-cultural India and say - 'cultural norms > differ, and I don't know how it is in your culture, but in my culture we do > things sensibly and honorably' I am likely to invite mob violence. > > I request IGC members to take note to the above utterance of John Levine, > and give their views on it, before I mention how I characterize it, because > he seems to have friends in high places on this list and I need to guard my > words much more than the regular list posters do. > > I did wait a whole day before I report this, hoping that someone else will. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:20 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: parminder at itforchange.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here > > > > >Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision > > of > > >the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- > > developing > > >country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the > > >DOC's adult supervision". > > > > Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing > > country governments? > > > > Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man > > arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if > > you could have made a real argument instead. > > > > Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste > > time rather than to address governance issues. > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:18:55 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:18:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <489EF911.2000508@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <489E965F.30E09229@ix.netcom.com> Carlos and all, I own stock in Verisign, and the holding company is SAIC, which is also headquartered in Virginia, for your information. Verisign is no longer in the fortune 1000 list, true enough, but in the IT space is still extremely influencial and has a ton of cash on hand, which may be why it has dropped from the fortune 1000 list. Carlos Afonso wrote: > As usual, a well done summary of the situation by Karl. I have been in > favor of a "network model" for the DNS, since I started dealing with > these themes in the early nineties, as opposed to the centralized one we > have today (considered by the powers-that-be as irreplaceable paradigm, > to the point that many techies with plenty of post-docs in their CVs > tremble at the mere mention of challenging it, like "the world is > obviously flat!"). But it is clear to me that extra-technical factors > impose the continuity of the current paradigm (with technical > explanations conveniently seduced to defend it). > > BTW, Verisign is traded in NASDAQ and is pretty small (it recently > dropped from the Fortune-1000 companies' list) compared to the > multibillion-dollar transactions we see today among transnational > conglomerates. It could very well be controlled by a financial > speculator from Qatar, China, Russia, or even Brazil :) A curious way of > moving power over ICANN away from the USA. After all, those "aliens" are > buying other US companies, including some US banks! Who knows, maybe > they already own Verisign, which is attractive not necessarily because > it is a gTLD near-monopoly which keeps its regulator on leash, but > because it has a relevant e-certification business. > > --c.a. > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > >> It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term > >> "neo-imperialism"... > > > > Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) > > > > As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and > > shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain > > "facts-of-life" come to my mind: > > > > 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal > > authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my > > government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion > > that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) > > > > 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal > > authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to > > impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California > > which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN > > were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, > > which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to > > move from the US any time soon. > > > > 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much > > impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply > > overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of > > US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US > > gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being > > labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult > > supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect > > that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall > > election this year. > > > > 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and > > that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our > > fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): > > > > There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, > > consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the > > proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of > > TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used > > today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP > > don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like > > better.) > > > > That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line > > with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is > > only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and > > obviating any single overlord of names on 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 11 01:30:12 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:30:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E014@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E014@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton, On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> not to mention not physically possible, as countries don't "get" IP >> addresses, organisations do. > > McTim, there is nothing "physically impossible" about delegating IP > addresses to nations first. Well, in terms of v4, it's certainly not possible, as there are not enough addresses left, perhaps I should have been more specific. My points remain however; A) it's not the current model of allocation B) it's unlikely that the IANA would allocate to countries (instead of to RIRs, as the nro would have smt to say about this idea). C) This was not (and is still not) well understood```` We probably agree that it is politically technically undesirable due to deaggregation (or lack of aggregation to be more precise). > undesirable, but don't make the mistake of trying to make a policy point > by making false technical claims. not a technical claim at all, was merely pointing out that you can't allocate on a grand scale something that you don't possess on such a scale (IPv4). -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:24:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:24:57 -0700 Subject: vote on "Sense of the Caucus" (was Re: [governance] Re: USG onICANN References: Message-ID: <489E97C9.883DFA3C@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, Thanks for helping making the case why ICANN needs adult supervision. This paradigm of inter-agency-Noncom groups cooperation is a pipe dream, but yes it is a nice pipe dream. Reality of history tells us someone has to be in charge to supervise such dreams in a realistic manner. DOC/NTIA hasn't been perfict, or at times even really good at doing so, but is far better than no supervision at all. Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Interesting idea, but i think it would take more then a name of an > idea to know how to choose. E.g. what does enhanced cooperation > mean? it takes more then a name to represent an idea. > > now if the proponents of each of these ideas were to take the time to > explain what they mean and how it would work, we might have a > worthwhile polling exercise. > > some might argue that this is a waste of effort since this narrow > topic is not the important one or not one we can do anything about. i > am not sure whether i actually agree or not, what i do believe is that > topic is the political gorilla in the room and under we reach some > closure on it, we are not going to move on to all the other pressing > issues. while this issue, the USG unilateral control on the root, > remains a issue that divides us between those who think it is a US > finger to the world and those who believe it is the only possible > solution for security and stability we do not seem to be going anywhere. > > this is true for the small microcosm of the IGC as well. so maybe > after we finish the elections and before we start the election to > renew/replace PS it might be interesting to see where we fall in this > discussion. how do those who do not write messages statiscally feel > on this subject? i would be curious to know. > > a. > > On 10 Aug 2008, at 10:05, McTim wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps a useful way to move forward is to have a vote on a general > > direction the caucus would like to move on this issue. Since, thanks > > to IGP folk, we have web voting possibilities, we can have multiple > > choices, from this thread, we seem to have these general positions: > > > > A) take the DOC at their word that they will never under > > any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root > > and, hence, over ICANN, and that caucus efforts to change this will be > > unproductive. > > > > B) it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether > > managed benignly or not. It has to change > > > > C) it might be useful to see what could be done, in cooperation with > > other interested stakeholders, to bring about that which should happen > > no matter how much DOC says it won't. > > > > D) Enhanced cooperation - EC > > > > E) The IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have > > possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc > > power. > > > > F) For the next review of the JPA, have list members tell the NTIA > > how we could have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of > > security, stability, and control in the last instance as now. > > > > G) for ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative > > authorisation structure with the UN, create another A root > > > > H) ICANN MOU with the UN > > > > I) terminating the JPA > > > > J) internet can have multiple, consistent root systems > > > > K) None of the above > > > > L) ?? > > > > M)?? > > > > What have I missed (insert as L and M) ? > > > > Of course, one could vote for as many of the above as one wanted. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > mctim.blogspot.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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:37:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:37:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <489E9AA0.AFB35739@ix.netcom.com> Karl and all, One thing is for certain, the .BIZ decision was a huge mistake at the time, and remains a black mark on ICANN as well as DOC/NTIA. And for this reason the decision in Paris to introduce new gTLD's and IDN gTLD's may show us all again how creating collisions in the name space serves no good purpose. Ergo, your argument, which I share Karl, is really the only logical way to go. It appears that perhaps ICANN is not heading in that direction however. I hope I'm wrong in that prediction. See: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm Karl Auerbach wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > >> There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, > >> consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the > >> proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of > >> TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms > >> used today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or > >> your ISP don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one > >> you like better.) > ... > > assuming it is not just mental block that prevents anyone from doing > > this, how come it hasn't happened? > > It has happened - there have been competing root systems for years. And > many people use a variation of the idea without knowing it by virtue of > ISP's intercepting DNS queries and vectoring them to their own servers. > > The problem why competing roots have not grown to be visible (or > financially viable) is based on a number of factors: > > 1. Most of 'em are run by people who seem to want to play games rather > than run a solid operation. As an experiment I used one of these, even > though it was not solidly run, for several years for myself and my > company. There were zero problems (except for the .biz conflict, but > that was caused by ICANN intentionally disregarding a pre-existing and > operating TLD of that name) until one of the folks running one of the > servers decided to operate outside the limits of the domain name RFCs. > > 2. The technical system composed of NTIA/ICANN/Versisign building a root > zone file and the legacy root operators publishing that zone is run with > intense professionalism and extremely high quality. It is a class-act > (I hope that's not too much of an American idiom). > > But there are quality operations - http://european.ch.orsn.net/ > > And there was once a very cool bit of web-based software called "grass > roots". What it was was a website that listed all of the various TLDs > that people have, such as my own .ewe. As a user you went through and > selected which TLDs you wanted in your constellation and, if any were in > dispute, which particular choice among the disputants. The website > generated a zone file that one could use to load bind and, voila, one > could run without recourse to any root system at all - all of the root > information was in your own servers. The website remembered your > choices so, if a TLD updated its list of servers or otherwise changed, > you could easily generate a new zone file. > > When I talk about competing roots, I mention "consistency". Consistency > is *very* important. People as users and people as publishers of > network resources would not like being surprised and discovering that > the names they use and utter don't work right. > > Some people define "consistency" as precise equivalence of TLDs in root > zone. (ORSN does this although they reserve the right to retain a TLD, > such as for example, .su, should ICANN remove it from their own root zone.) > > I tend to define "consistency" more broadly. In my definition, two root > zones are consistent if for each TLD they contain the delegation > information is equivalent. Thus every TLD they contain in common is > backed by the same TLD servers and thus identical data. > > My definition allows each operator of a system of root servers to offer > their own blend of TLDs in the root zone file they publish. This is a > key point. > > Because by allowing each root operator to choice the inventory of TLDs > being offered we create a path for new aspiring TLDs to try to gain a > place in the sun. > > Some aspiring TLDs will find that they can not convince any root > operator to include their "product"; those TLDs will die. > > Some aspiring TLDs will convince some root operators to include their > product. Those TLDs will, for as long as they are in only a few roots, > be boutique TLDs. But being a boutique TLD is not to say that it is a > useless TLD. Various groups, religious, educational, or whatever, may > find it useful to set up their own TLD and all the members use whatever > root publishes their TLD. > > Some aspiring TLDs may grow to such demand that root operators will > chose to incorporate them as a mater of course - we can anticipate that > the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign suite of about 250 TLDs will be in this category. > > Some aspiring TLDs will not wait to be chosen but will pay root > operators to include their product into those operator's list of TLDs. > > (One a TLD has become one of the must-have ones it is conceivable that > the situation could turn around and that the root operator must pay the > TLD for the right to publish that TLD.) > > Getting to disputes over names: These will certainly arise. > > TLDs with the same name are tainted goods, no rational root system > operator would want these in its inventory - such TLDs are going to > cause user confusion and raise trouble for the root operator. > Consequently, those TLDs that are in dispute are going to have trouble > finding a place to exist and will thus have an incentive to resolve the > dispute. > > And as for forums to resolve disputes: The worldwide system that > resolves disputes over product names, trade and service marks, is quite > usable to resolve disputes between those who are trying to run different > TLDs under the same name. Yes it is a system that is full of lawyers > and other denizens of the darkness, but it is a system that works and is > no less fair than ICANN's UDRP and certainly has the very important > characteristic of being already in operation and pretty much universally > accepted. In other words we don't need to create an overlord of names > to resolve disputes over TLD names: we already have a distributed system > that stands ready and able to do the task. > > So, as you can see, if we had competing, consistent roots those who want > to try their hand and risk their money on building a new TLD can do so. > They will, like anyone marking a new product, have to fight to "build > their brand" by getting shelf-space in the inventory offered by root > operators. But that's simply the normal facts of life for normal kinds > of products. > > And some of those TLD products will be shoddy or badly run. And here we > get to the question whether ICANN is a consumer protection agency? Is > it (and if so, it is rather odd in the way it ejects those consumers it > purports to protect from its forums of decision-making.) > > If we can presume that domain name buyers have enough brains to pick and > chose among TLD offerings then our level of governance is merely to > require that TLD providers publish enough information for buyers to make > rational choices, in other words TLDs should be required to publish > something akin to the kind of all-revealing prospectus that we here in > the US get for offerings of financial securities. And that there be > long-enough contracts for those buyers to lock-in those promises. > > Sure, some TLDs will collapse leaving owners of names in those TLDs with > useless names. Again, do we want to create a worldwide body of consumer > protection (an uber-ICANN) or do we want to way, as we say with airline > tickets, if you buy from a shaky airline and it collapses leaving you > with worthless tickets, well, too bad for you? > > People who want to build rock-solid names will tend to remain in .com, > .org, and .net. Some new TLDs will aspire to build a reputation good > enough to attract those customers. > > But some new TLDs may specialize in short-term registrations: A name for > a month to handle a one-time town meeting for example. A collapse of > that kind of TLD will not be a catastrophe. > > > - lack of political will? why do all those frustrated governments > > keeping waiting for USG/ICANN blessing? > > Government people, like most people, crave the known and fear the > unknown. Given the quality of the operation run by the legacy root > server folks - people who deserve internet angelic status - there is > little incentive from the point of view of governments to change. ICANN > gives ccTLDs a lot of leeway. Governments have their ccTLDs, they are > sated. > > > - people do not believe it is technically possible? i.e. it is easy to > > say if can be done technically, but has anyone really laid out a plan > > and showed how it can work - running code and all of that? > > I ran my own machines and those of my company using various other root > systems, including one of those "grass roots" setups for several years > while actively looking for problems. There were none (until one > operator decided that he could violate the RFCs by putting character > string IP addresses rather than host names into NS records.) > > Having competing roots offers a significant increment in internet safety > - it removes a single point of failure (the single root) and allows > users (or more likely their ISPs) to chose the root that works best and, > if that goes awry, to change to another. > > The bigger question is where does the money come from to lubricate this > system so that it can run? > > Turns out that there is a lot of data mining gold in DNS query streams. > (People do not realize that ICANN's contracts specifically allow TLD > operators to data mine the query traffic. And one can make a guess that > various governmental agencies in some countries are rather interested > in, and willing to pay for, "intelligence" data or "law enforcement" > information that they can derive from the queries.) > > As I have been reminded by John L., because of caching a lot more > interesting data can be gleaned from TLD server than from a root server. > However, there still remains a lot of value that can be gained by > sitting at a root and watching the queries (remember, name queries > received by roots tend to contain the entire domain name being resolved). > > Sure, the idea that our queries are being monetized is scary, but it is > already permissible under ICANN's contracts. > > > another question i have, would this be yet another mechanism that would > > allow for restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of > > communication? would ISPs become the new arbiter of who we would have > > access to? i.e my provider could restricted me to the family friendly DNS? > > Yes, an ISP that wants to offer a shrunken DNS could do so; but I would > suggest that an ISP that wants to do this already can find plenty of > tools to do this even in a single-root world. > > I would submit that having competing, consistent roots, gives users more > opportunities to bypass such restrictive ISPs and removes the more > fearful worry of a worldwide central authority from imposing its moral > or cultural views on *all* DNS everywhere - we already saw this kind of > thing in a small way with .xxx in which a small fundamentalist religious > group in the US manipulated the US executive dept to tickle the Dept of > Commerce to stomp out .xxx no matter whether the community said it was > good or not. > > > or would it be possible for users to pick any DNS tree, or mixture of > > DNS trees, they wished? > > I'm not suggesting changing the DNS protocols, so mixing of trees would > not be possible. > > > could this model bring us a new form of provider, the global DNS > > provider, who gave use unfettered access to all possible roots? > > That itself would be a new root that simply aggregated every TLD that it > saw, modulo those in dispute. > > > it is an interesting idea that you and others have been talking about > > for yeas, yet i never see more discussion of it then a idea presented > > and then ignored. why is that? i know you have your own ideas on TLDs > > and even have your own .ewe (love the name) . why has it not flown yet > > and why is it not breaking this ground open - especially if it is such a > > fertile field and an obvious solution? > > I really have not had time to get the registration system of .ewe in > place; I'm working too hard on network testing and troubleshooting > tools. People can see the skeleton of the idea at: > http://www.cavebear.com/eweregistry/ > > > - does the whole idea just need a good business plan? > > Yes, but it also needs ICANN to refrain from things like ICP-3. That > kind of thing can be construed as interference, potentially unlawful > interference, with the business plans of those who aspire to build TLDs > and roots outside of the ICANN system. What ICANN does via ICP-3 is a > lot like Microsoft and Apple publishing an official joint statement that > declares Linux to be a danger to all computer users and something that > must not be permitted. > > > or do you really believe it just needs a paradigm shift.? > > Well, this new set of DNS attacks are certainly revealing some deep > cracks in the architecture of DNS. > > And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC affects this. > > --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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:40:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:40:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> Message-ID: <489E9B57.B367982C@ix.netcom.com> Avir and all, Answer: Of course not, unless ICANN SSAC doesn't impliment it correctly and fully. Avri Doria wrote: > On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > thanks for the complete answer. another question? > > > > > And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC > > affects this. > > doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved > root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model > out? > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 11 01:45:37 2008 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The sense of the IGC Message-ID: <538900.76191.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dear all, For some time now, I have changed delivery options of this list to a digest. Mainly because sentiments and personal feelings were overtaking content and issues. It is important that folks who send mails should read them, review them, and actually consider what the post will mean to others before clicking 'send' Very best Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 03:41:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:41:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <489E9B8F.FA5E93E9@ix.netcom.com> Carlos and all, Exactly right! Carlos Afonso wrote: > No, in my view. Countries are already running DNSSEC for subdomains of > their ccTLDs independently of the root. > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > thanks for the complete answer. another question? > > > >> > >> And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC affects > >> this. > > > > > > doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved > > root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model out? > > > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 02:38:51 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:08:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] The sense of the IGC In-Reply-To: <538900.76191.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <538900.76191.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Neena, Yes, discussions of this magnitude call for restraint in expression and careful attention to every word written. *What is written is already public record, part of public documentation in some sense.* The issues raised are distracted away in *ad hominem *that slips in very frequently from various participants. Considering the fact that some concrete documentation in the form of a proposal or recommendation is to be compiled from out of these discussions, "> It is important that folks who send mails should read them, review them, > and actually consider what the post will mean to others before clicking > 'send' " ** Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nnenna wrote: > Dear all, > > For some time now, I have changed delivery options of this list to a > digest. > Mainly because sentiments and personal feelings were overtaking > content and issues. > > It is important that folks who send mails should read them, review them, > and actually consider what the post will mean to others before clicking > 'send' > > Very best > > Nnenna > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 06:06:46 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:06:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <0ac601c8f791$d726ec30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080808053114.84266.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E014@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <489EBDB6.C0CAF1A@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Indeed V4 is nearly exausted. 2011 may be optomistic as an end of PA space date. ICANN's push for V6 is still looking bad as well for a number of already known reasons, security being a primary reason. But than again when I was on the v6 development group, I saw early on that v6 was not the way to go. So the chickens have or will be coming home to roost. Allocating to governments is indeed an option but a poor one for many already known reasons, one of which you mentioned McTim. China moving ever so slowly but surely to v9 may overtake in a few years... McTim wrote: > Hello Milton, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> not to mention not physically possible, as countries don't "get" IP > >> addresses, organisations do. > > > > McTim, there is nothing "physically impossible" about delegating IP > > addresses to nations first. > > Well, in terms of v4, it's certainly not possible, as there are not > enough addresses left, perhaps I should have been more specific. My > points remain however; > > A) it's not the current model of allocation > B) it's unlikely that the IANA would allocate to countries (instead of > to RIRs, as the nro would have smt to say about this idea). > C) This was not (and is still not) well understood```` > > We probably agree that it is politically > > technically undesirable due to deaggregation (or lack of aggregation > to be more precise). > > > undesirable, but don't make the mistake of trying to make a policy point > > by making false technical claims. > > not a technical claim at all, was merely pointing out that you can't > allocate on a grand scale something that you don't possess on such a > scale (IPv4). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 06:08:38 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:08:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] The sense of the IGC References: <538900.76191.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <489EBE26.CD6283F0@ix.netcom.com> Nnenna and all, Always of course... But lets not do content means testing... Nnenna wrote: > Dear all, > > For some time now, I have changed delivery options of this list to a > digest. > Mainly because sentiments and personal feelings were overtaking > content and issues. > > It is important that folks who send mails should read them, review > them, > and actually consider what the post will mean to others before > clicking > 'send' > > Very best > > Nnenna > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 11 15:32:29 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:32:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <18FB1CB3-74E4-42E7-870E-3D6C36EA3CCA@psg.com> hi, my question has to do with the root servers. once the root is signed, will any other root server be able to do anything other then accept the entire database? i.e. will they be able to pick and choose, as I understand ORSN was ready to do? my question is, will dnssec on the root, lock all roots into lockstep? a. On 10 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > No, in my view. Countries are already running DNSSEC for subdomains > of their ccTLDs independently of the root. > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: >> On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> thanks for the complete answer. another question? >>> >>> And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC >>> affects this. >> doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN >> approved root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the >> ORSN model out? >> 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 icggov at johnlevine.com Mon Aug 11 16:46:08 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 11 Aug 2008 20:46:08 -0000 Subject: [governance] DNSSEC, was USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080811204608.46879.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved >root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model >out? Not really. DNSSEC provides a chain of signatures corresponding to the chain of NS delegations for each zone. You need a manually configured "trust anchor" to start validating the chain, ideally for the root. Non-IANA roots currently mirror most or all of the NS records in the IANA root, which they obtain either by zone transfer or by FTP from Verisign's public FTP server. They can continue to do the same thing, but add their own signatures of the signed zones they mirror. The trust anchor for a non-IANA root would be differerent from the one for the IANA root. But just as you configure different root server IP addresses to pick your favorite root, you'll configure the corresponding trust anchor. The recent comments about the relative stability of the IANA vs. non-IANA roots applies doubly when DNSSEC is involved. Each zone is likely to change its key once or twice a year, which means that the parent zone has to notice and adjust its signature to match the new key. (Barring emergencies, there would be a couple of months' overlap between the old and new keys, so this isn't a real time issue, its a process issue.) If the parent signature gets stale, the child zone effectively disappears. Oops. Credible roots better not do that. 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 Mon Aug 11 16:44:30 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:44:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <18FB1CB3-74E4-42E7-870E-3D6C36EA3CCA@psg.com> References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> <18FB1CB3-74E4-42E7-870E-3D6C36EA3CCA@psg.com> Message-ID: <48A0A4AE.2040706@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: > my question is, will dnssec on the root, lock all roots into lockstep? That is my question as well. (By-the-way, I did have a good conversation with Patrick Falstrom and others whilst at ICANN in Paris about how fast a DNSSEC signed zone can come back up in the situation where a server crashes and loses its in-memory state. The answers were good - that with good operational practices for pre-signed text zone files the time to come back can be about as fast as an unsigned zone. For database based name servers there is a bit more required but it can be fast as well. I don't remember all the details, only the conclusion. It would be nice if we could induce Patrick and others to write a note about this and thus lay my concern to permanent rest.) --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 arno at ripe.net Mon Aug 11 17:20:06 2008 From: arno at ripe.net (Arno Meulenkamp) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:20:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] DNSSEC, was USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <20080811204608.46879.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080811204608.46879.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <48A0AD06.9030308@ripe.net> Hi Avri, John, John Levine wrote: >> doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN approved >> root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the ORSN model >> out? > > Not really. <...> > The trust anchor for a non-IANA root would be differerent from the one > for the IANA root. But just as you configure different root server IP > addresses to pick your favorite root, you'll configure the > corresponding trust anchor. Of course, the "official" root server operators currently have the possibility to serve whatever data they please. That possibility will no longer be there once DNSSEC is in place. (for all DNSSEC verifying resolvers, that is) For instance, in the case of Verisign adding a wildcard to the .com zone, there were secondaries that took out that resource record. DNSSEC will put a stop to the option of secondaries to change the content of the zone. As to alternate roots, like John said, there is effectively no change with the addition of DNSSEC, although people choosing an alternate root need to also know to change their trust anchor. regards, Arno ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 11 17:34:53 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:34:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F55@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Been in transit lately and when not, biting my tongue. A few points: Addressing Karl's 1) & 2) The DARPA->NSF->NTIA/DOC passage of various US federal levers over the net/ICANN are well-documented, and I expect will stand up to legal scrutiny, even in a California court a) Karl's more subtle point that ICANN is NOT formally obliged to do anything the US federal government/NTIA tells it to do, is surely correct, and explains why NTIA is now obliged to send somewhat whiny notes to ICANN just like everyone else, if it wants something done b) which suggests that the most plausible path toward multistakeholder evolution of control remains going through ICANN, in my opinion, in spite of its faults, such as b)1 in spite of the various breaches of proper administrative procedure as can be pointed to in things like the .XXX decision courtesy of a Karl Rove/White House phone call, or the apparent petty harrassment of .ir over switching fax numbers on a timely basis c) to be fair to ICANN, it is all of 10 years old (who's throwing the party? ; ), and sometimes seems to act with the maturity and thoughtfulness, of my 10 year old (who is mature for her age, but only sometimes). with regard to 3), I agree, that first in the final days of the Bush administration one would be truly shocked if the NTIA said anything other than what it did; second, neither Obama nor McCain will 'lose' the Internet, nor wish to be put in a political position in which they could be accused of the same; which suggests that an evolutionary political - technical process, in which ICANN is one but not the only international actor, is the way forward, since the USG won't let go of any lever without a credible and perceived to be fair and operationally effective alternative. It's political, sure, but the economic importance of the net means all governments will tread carefully here. On 4), while Karl has elucidated how and why multiple roots can work without disruption, the bigger challenge remains that which Parminder has spoken up about, and which many seem to shy away from, explicating how enhanced cooperation on Internet governance can evolve to include governments, business and civil society interests from North and South, and East and West, in appropriate oversight of a globally distributed system of systems, containing many many networks of networks. The vehemence with which we often find ourselves interacting on this list is just a small taste of how hard this will be, but I remain optimistic that as IGF grows up, it can play a helpful role in a more multistakeholder 'enhanced cooperation' process, than the closed-door, governments only process to date. And I don't see this as a simple thing to vote on, it will take time and effort to work this all through. Definitely more time than the Bush administration has left. In sum, considering the commercial Internet is just a teenager, and ICANN is even younger, things could be way worse than they are - let's look on te bright side. If we could only maintain a modest degree of focus here on the list, we might actually make a contribution ourselves to getting a net which serves civil society first and foremost! (and I am part of the we, so please take that as self-criticism) Lee -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Sat 8/9/2008 8:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Parminder'; Milton L Mueller; 'William Drake' Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here Michael Gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism"... Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain "facts-of-life" come to my mind: 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to move from the US any time soon. 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall election this year. 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like better.) That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and obviating any single overlord of names on 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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.shtern at umontreal.ca Mon Aug 11 17:43:30 2008 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:43:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> Hi Everyone, A colleague asked me a standards question that I thought maybe somebody on the list might have the answer to: is MP3 an open standard or not? Feel free to email me on or off-list if you have some ideas and thanks in advance. Cheers, Jeremy Shtern --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shtern Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- John Levine wrote: > Standards organizations such as ISO have been around a lot longer than > the Internet, and they've always depended on the sale of copies of > standards for support. I'm surprised that the ISO says that sales are > only 30% of revenue, although that may be misleading since most of the > dues paying ISO members are themselves standards bodies such as ANSI > which in turn get most of their revenue from standards sales, too. > (In the US, it's faster and cheaper to get copies of ISO standards > from ANSI rather than ordering from Switzerland.) > > Historically, the people interested in standards have been engineers > interested in building whatever the standards described, be it screw > threads or mobile phones. I've paid for my share of printed ANSI > standards and PDFs and didn't begrudge the cost. > > The proposal on the table appears to be that governments should pay > for standards production and distribution rather than standards users. > Why is that a particularly good use of public money? Most Internet > standards are available for free from from the IETF anyway. ISO > standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies of > standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing whatever > a standard describes. > > 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 Mon Aug 11 17:55:48 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 11 Aug 2008 21:55:48 -0000 Subject: [governance] DNSSEC, was USG on ICANN - no movement here In-Reply-To: <48A0AD06.9030308@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080811215548.63789.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >For instance, in the case of Verisign adding a wildcard to the .com >zone, there were secondaries that took out that resource record. >DNSSEC will put a stop to the option of secondaries to change the >content of the zone. Secondaries? Of .COM? Really? Of a zone with 180 million records? All the countermeasures I know to the .COM wildcard were ad-hoc hacks in caches or resolvers that looked for the specific IP address in VRSN's wildcard A record and pretended it got NXDOMAIN. You can still do that with DNSSEC. I agree that more complex spoofs like the ones where ISPs substitute their own result for NXDOMAIN will be harder, but in general I think that's more good than bad. 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 19:43:49 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:43:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] coordinator election Message-ID: I've seen the two candidate bios. I't would help me if both of you would post a very very short discussion of why you'd like the job. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 21:46:58 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:46:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] So much for Government managment to: The Pirate Bay blocked in Italy Message-ID: <489F9A12.9D2A3036@ix.netcom.com> All, The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent site, has been blocked by (some/most ?) Italian ISPs. It seems it was an IP-based block. Thus, it can be circumvented quite easily. I wonder where the NA'S, Noncom, or the ALAC is on this one? Hiding perhaps? Or just disinterested? Under/non-funded to oppose effectively? Score: ALAC and Naralo's/Noncom 0 IPC and the IP ACTA folks 1 What normally happens is: 1. Comp requests http://thepiratebay.org 2. ISP's DNS server looks up the IP address for http://thepiratebay.org to answer query 3. ISP's DNS server resolves http://thepiratebay.org to be http://83.140.176.200 4. ISP serves http://83.140.176.200 Italian ISPs stepped in at stage 3, and blocked that IP address from being served. Thus, the way to resolve this would be to use some other DNS resolution server (instead of theISP's). OpenDNS provides such a service, with DNS servers 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 Italians can also continue to access TPB by using http://labaia.org/ ("La Baia" being "The Bay" in Italian.) Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 22:41:11 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:41:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <03757BFD-C937-4F85-B3EC-E229B3D29899@psg.com> <489F2EBC.5030303@cavebear.com> <6235B846-40CE-4CF2-8F2C-FE7AC5281B1A@psg.com> <489F6424.60803@rits.org.br> <18FB1CB3-74E4-42E7-870E-3D6C36EA3CCA@psg.com> Message-ID: <489FA6C7.F111AF7D@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, If DNSSEC is implimented properly the answer is no. Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > my question has to do with the root servers. once the root is signed, > will any other root server be able to do anything other then accept > the entire database? i.e. will they be able to pick and choose, as I > understand ORSN was ready to do? > > my question is, will dnssec on the root, lock all roots into lockstep? > > a. > > On 10 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > No, in my view. Countries are already running DNSSEC for subdomains > > of their ccTLDs independently of the root. > > > > --c.a. > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2008, at 14:09, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> thanks for the complete answer. another question? > >>> > >>> And I don't really know how the very slow deployment of DNSSEC > >>> affects this. > >> doesn't DNSSEC, once fully in place, lock us into the ICANN > >> approved root with no chance for variation? would DNSEC knock the > >> ORSN model out? > >> 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 10 22:53:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:53:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here References: <008801c8f9fc$8f8804f0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> <489E33E3.3060203@cavebear.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F55@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <489FA98D.ABCB0C5A@ix.netcom.com> Lee and all, Thank you for your remarks and opinions. I think you made my ahd Karl's longs standing case. ICANN needs "Adult" supervision, and why in part, that is does. The only question remaining is, is DOC/NTIA the best choice, and if not, whom is. A secondary question might be: Could and should DOC/NTIA or whomever else that might replace same, have a more forceful contractual arrangement with ICANN, and how and what social principals should be a part of that arrangement. Oh yes, and Lee, as an aside, remember always, brevity, brevity, brevity. >:) Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Been in transit lately and when not, biting my tongue. > > A few points: > Addressing Karl's 1) & 2) The DARPA->NSF->NTIA/DOC passage of various > US federal levers over the net/ICANN are well-documented, and I expect > will stand up to legal scrutiny, even in a California court > a) Karl's more subtle point that ICANN is NOT formally obliged to do > anything the US federal government/NTIA tells it to do, is surely > correct, and explains why NTIA is now obliged to send somewhat whiny > notes to ICANN just like everyone else, if it wants something done > b) which suggests that the most plausible path toward multistakeholder > evolution of control remains going through ICANN, in my opinion, in > spite of its faults, such as > b)1 in spite of the various breaches of proper administrative > procedure as can be pointed to in things like the .XXX decision > courtesy of a Karl Rove/White House phone call, or the apparent petty > harrassment of .ir over switching fax numbers on a timely basis > c) to be fair to ICANN, it is all of 10 years old (who's throwing the > party? ; ), and sometimes seems to act with the maturity and > thoughtfulness, of my 10 year old (who is mature for her age, but only > sometimes). > > with regard to 3), I agree, that first in the final days of the Bush > administration one would be truly shocked if the NTIA said anything > other than what it did; second, neither Obama nor McCain will 'lose' > the Internet, nor wish to be put in a political position in which they > could be accused of the same; which suggests that an evolutionary > political - technical process, in which ICANN is one but not the only > international actor, is the way forward, since the USG won't let go of > any lever without a credible and perceived to be fair and > operationally effective alternative. It's political, sure, but the > economic importance of the net means all governments will tread > carefully here. > > On 4), while Karl has elucidated how and why multiple roots can work > without disruption, the bigger challenge remains that which Parminder > has spoken up about, and which many seem to shy away from, explicating > how enhanced cooperation on Internet governance can evolve to include > governments, business and civil society interests from North and > South, and East and West, in appropriate oversight of a globally > distributed system of systems, containing many many networks of > networks. The vehemence with which we often find ourselves > interacting on this list is just a small taste of how hard this will > be, but I remain optimistic that as IGF grows up, it can play a > helpful role in a more multistakeholder 'enhanced cooperation' > process, than the closed-door, governments only process to date. And I > don't see this as a simple thing to vote on, it will take time and > effort to work this all through. Definitely more time than the Bush > administration has left. > > In sum, considering the commercial Internet is just a teenager, and > ICANN is even younger, things could be way worse than they are - let's > look on te bright side. If we could only maintain a modest degree of > focus here on the list, we might actually make a contribution > ourselves to getting a net which serves civil society first and > foremost! (and I am part of the we, so please take that as > self-criticism) > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Sat 8/9/2008 8:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Cc: 'Parminder'; Milton L Mueller; 'William Drake' > Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term > "neo-imperialism"... > > Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-) > > As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and > shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain > "facts-of-life" come to my mind: > > 1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal > authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my > > government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion > that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.) > > 2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal > authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to > impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California > > which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN > > were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, > which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to > move from the US any time soon. > > 3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much > impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even > simply > overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out > of > US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US > > gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being > labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult > supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should > expect > that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall > election this year. > > 4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - > and > that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at > our > fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips): > > There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, > > consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the > proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of > TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms > used > today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP > > don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like > better.) > > That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line > with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is > only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and > obviating any single overlord of names on 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 21:43:29 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:43:29 -0600 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear Lisa, Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of course it has to be done in the right way.... If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. Thanks a lot for your time. Best regards, Jaco On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi Max and all > > > > Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally interested in > your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we could > start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of > rights wiki? > > > > Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those who aren't > interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! > > > > The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression > Project. I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key > partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles > that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that > would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and > content. The latest draft of the principles is available and open for > comment at > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > > > The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that > they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them to provide > an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different > scales. For example, our project partners are currently working to > elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in > turn will provide the foundations for policy work. A major aim is to > identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share > certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > > > We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human > rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture > and the right to participation in government. We've taken an expansive > definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights > institutions and lawyers around the world take. This includes positive > dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments > are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in > place for the right to be realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > the internet or to communication. The sentiments and demands expressed by > these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system. In > my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding > what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions > of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as > Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with > them actually means in practice. > > > > The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this > effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is > being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case > law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. It is > taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it > is firmly rooted in the international human rights system. In this way, if > the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights > standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions. > > > > Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues, > we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the > 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the > internet' are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most widely > accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in > reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with > them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > > > I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts > on the work we're doing, and am keen to explore opportunities to > collaborate on further research on any of these issues. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Lisa > > > > *From:* bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto: > bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Max Senges > *Sent:* 06 August 2008 17:36 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > dear lisa and all > > Lisa wrote: > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and > Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to > frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > the fall. > > It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research > undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. > > Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? > > Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get > in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication > > best > max > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the > appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues > quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here > in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the > draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public > awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. > Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and > internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say > there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what > the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work > with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC > tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this > terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing > ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong > man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit > belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short > again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and > spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with > those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bill-of-Rights mailing list > Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 01:02:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:02:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> Jaco, Lisa and all, I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of Rights. What I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, whom would enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US Congress, or some other governmental entity? Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Dear Lisa, > > Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. > Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > > Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > course it has to be done in the right way.... > > If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier > to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", > made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Best regards, > > Jaco > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > Horner wrote: > > Hi Max and all > > Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally > interested in your work and in exploring potentials for > collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and > 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? > > Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those > who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read > mode now! > > The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom > of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that > we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different > countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, > would shape a global communications environment that would > support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, > code and content. The latest draft of the principles is > available and open for comment at > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > The principles and values that they express are purposefully > broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. > The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for > policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For > example, our project partners are currently working to > elaborate what they might mean in different country > contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for > policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where > different stakeholders can agree that they share certain > values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > We have been working to base all of our work so far in > international human rights standards, in particular freedom > of expression, the right to culture and the right to > participation in government. We've taken an expansive > definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) > human rights institutions and lawyers around the world > take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of > expression, including the notion that governments are > responsible for putting the necessary > structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be > realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we > need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > the internet or to communication. The sentiments and > demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already > contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, > our energy should be focused on further developing and > upholding what we have already, for example, further > embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in > rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton > importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > understanding about what international rights standards and > compliance with them actually means in practice. > > The research that I referred to before is intended to > contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive > definition of freedom of expression is being supported in > contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, > and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. > It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting > point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > international human rights system. In this way, if the > framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human > rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within > the discussions. > > Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these > aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive > contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and > principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' > are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most > widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the > world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why > it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, > rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear > anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to > explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on > any of these issues. > > Many thanks, > > Lisa > > From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of > Max Senges > Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > dear lisa and all > > Lisa wrote: > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > insights... > > that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center > for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by > contributing research and i agreed to frame research > opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > the fall. > > It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the > other research undertaken to better understand a Rights > based approach to IG. > > Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners > research? > > Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much > invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, > share and avoid duplication > > best > maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission > is the appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate > speech issues quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. > Here is their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a > few times here in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember > correctly the draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC > (human rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to > create public awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is > less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship > between rights and internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since > WSIS. As you say there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to > work out what the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that > we can work with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example > net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has > not engaged this terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site > [was: beijing ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > Horner" partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a > complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of > rights states > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of > hatred that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that > constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other > legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance > issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights > lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human > rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of > the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the > current age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an > inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different > rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to > be done in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable > of dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of > expression and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national > human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many > new campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that > they should > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, > existing human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all > scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out > how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds > could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is > actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and > sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes > short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the > great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so > that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bill-of-Rights mailing list > Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 00:36:21 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:06:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] coordinator election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080812043632.300D7E2385@smtp3.electricembers.net> . > I't would help me if both of you > would post a very very short discussion of why you'd like the job. Sylvia I understand where you come from. However we did consider asking for candidature statements that you mention but decided against it. I don't want to get into the reasons in the middle of the voting process. I therefore request you and others to go ahead with voting without waiting for any further information on the candidates. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] coordinator election > > I've seen the two candidate bios. I't would help me if both of you > would post a very very short discussion of why you'd like the job. > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 02:06:36 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:06:36 -0600 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme Court. On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of Rights. What > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, whom would > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US Congress, > or some other governmental entity? > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > >> Dear Lisa, >> >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. >> >> Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of >> course it has to be done in the right way.... >> >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. >> >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. >> >> Thanks a lot for your time. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jaco >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa >> Horner wrote: >> >> Hi Max and all >> >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally >> interested in your work and in exploring potentials for >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? >> >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read >> mode now! >> >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different >> countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, >> would shape a global communications environment that would >> support human rights and a 'public interest' communications >> environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, >> code and content. The latest draft of the principles is >> available and open for comment at >> >> http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. >> >> The principles and values that they express are purposefully >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for >> policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For >> example, our project partners are currently working to >> elaborate what they might mean in different country >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where >> different stakeholders can agree that they share certain >> values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. >> >> We have been working to base all of our work so far in >> international human rights standards, in particular freedom >> of expression, the right to culture and the right to >> participation in government. We've taken an expansive >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the world >> take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of >> expression, including the notion that governments are >> responsible for putting the necessary >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments and >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already >> contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, >> our energy should be focused on further developing and >> upholding what we have already, for example, further >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing >> understanding about what international rights standards and >> compliance with them actually means in practice. >> >> The research that I referred to before is intended to >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive >> definition of freedom of expression is being supported in >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, >> and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the >> international human rights system. In this way, if the >> framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human >> rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within >> the discussions. >> >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the >> world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. >> >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on >> any of these issues. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Lisa >> >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of >> Max Senges >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research >> dear lisa and all >> >> Lisa wrote: >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy >> principles based >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, >> universal >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the >> international human >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting >> insights... >> >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center >> for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by >> contributing research and i agreed to frame research >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in >> the fall. >> >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the >> other research undertaken to better understand a Rights >> based approach to IG. >> >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners >> research? >> >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, >> share and avoid duplication >> >> best >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> Hallo all >> >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission >> is the appropriate >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate >> speech issues quite often. >> >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. >> Here is their URL >> http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml >> >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a >> few times here in South >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember >> correctly the draft bill was badly >> not well conceived and very controversial. >> >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC >> (human rights >> commission) would the way to start if the intension is to >> create public awareness of >> the issue. >> >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I >> would just ignore it. >> >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship >> between rights and internet >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since >> WSIS. As you say there is a >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to >> work out what the >> implementable rights-based public policy principles are that >> we can work with on >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt >> this approach in our access work. >> >> I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has >> not engaged this terrain >> enough, altough there are exceptions. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 >> From: "Lisa Horner" >> >> To: , >> "Rui Correia" >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site >> [was: beijing ticket scam] >> Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa >> Horner" > partners.co.uk> >> >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a >> complaint with the >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of >> rights states >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of >> hatred that >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that >> constitutes >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other >> legislation >> > in SA? >> > >> > So many of our discussions around internet governance >> issues can be >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights >> lawyers and >> > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human >> rights and >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of >> the only >> > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the >> current age >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an >> inbuilt >> > framework for balancing out tensions between different >> rights and >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to >> be done in >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable >> of dealing >> > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of >> expression and >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national >> human >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? >> > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many >> new campaigns >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that >> they should >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, >> existing human >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all >> scales. >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy >> principles based >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, >> universal >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the >> international human >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting >> insights... >> > >> > Any thoughts? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Lisa >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> http://www.apc.org >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------- >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes >> short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so >> that his place shall never be with those cold and timid >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jaco Aizenman L. >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 >> Costa Rica >> >> What is an i-name? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name >> >> >> >> -- >> Jaco Aizenman L. >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 >> Costa Rica >> >> What is an i-name? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 02:24:03 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:03 +0900 Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Message-ID: No comments on the Hyderabad programme? Deadline is this coming Friday, August 15. Any organization or individual can send comments, all comments will be considered in the revised programme. Thanks, Adam > >Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:51 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Comments on the programme > > >Deadline for comments on the Hyderabad programme paper is August 15. >Paper: > > >Comments received will be included in a revised document prepared >for the September consultation (September 16, and 17-18.) > >Comments should be sent to by August 15. > >I know many of you have concerns about the programme, please make >them known to the secretariat. These rolling documents are important >to the MAG and are read and referred to by many stakeholders in the >open consultations. If you have comments send them either as >personal comments (individuals are recognized) or on behalf of your >organization. Comments from the caucus would be ideal, but anyone >interested can and should make their views known. Best not to wait. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Delivered-To: lists.cpsr.org-governance at npogroups.org >>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0900 >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>From: Adam Peake >>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send questions or >>false-positive reports to help at electricembers.net >>Subject: [governance] important: Comments on the programme paper - deadline >> August 15 >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake >>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>X-Sequence: 4724 >>X-no-archive: yes >>List-Id: >>List-Archive: >>List-Help: >>List-Owner: >>List-Post: >>List-Subscribe: >>List-Unsubscribe: >> >> >>Hi, >> >>Comments on the Hyderabad programme paper should be submitted by August 15. >> >>Programme is online at >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 04:44:43 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:44:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> Jaco and all, Well there are a few other courts to go through before one even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the supreme Court in the US. That's not enforcement in any event. That's adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher course. Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme Court, but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually been heard in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these instances either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient to be heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or Rights? Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other countries? Whom would enforce those? The newly formed civil rights division of the International House of Justice perhaps? How would such new rights be so recognized by such an august body without nearly every country's legal structure amended appropriately? And than yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in multi-jurisdictional cases? How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? Interpol perhaps? < shrug > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme Court. > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of Rights. What > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, whom would > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US Congress, > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > >> Dear Lisa, > >> > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > >> > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > >> > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > >> > >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > >> > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Jaco > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > >> Horner wrote: > >> > >> Hi Max and all > >> > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally > >> interested in your work and in exploring potentials for > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? > >> > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read > >> mode now! > >> > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, > >> would shape a global communications environment that would > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > >> environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, > >> code and content. The latest draft of the principles is > >> available and open for comment at > >> > >> http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > >> > >> The principles and values that they express are purposefully > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For > >> example, our project partners are currently working to > >> elaborate what they might mean in different country > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share certain > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > >> > >> We have been working to base all of our work so far in > >> international human rights standards, in particular freedom > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right to > >> participation in government. We've taken an expansive > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the world > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of > >> expression, including the notion that governments are > >> responsible for putting the necessary > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments and > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already > >> contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, > >> our energy should be focused on further developing and > >> upholding what we have already, for example, further > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > >> understanding about what international rights standards and > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > >> > >> The research that I referred to before is intended to > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive > >> definition of freedom of expression is being supported in > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > >> international human rights system. In this way, if the > >> framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human > >> rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within > >> the discussions. > >> > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the > >> world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > >> > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on > >> any of these issues. > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> > >> Lisa > >> > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of > >> Max Senges > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > >> dear lisa and all > >> > >> Lisa wrote: > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > >> principles based > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > >> universal > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > >> international human > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > >> insights... > >> > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center > >> for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame research > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > >> the fall. > >> > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the > >> other research undertaken to better understand a Rights > >> based approach to IG. > >> > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners > >> research? > >> > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, > >> share and avoid duplication > >> > >> best > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hallo all > >> > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission > >> is the appropriate > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate > >> speech issues quite often. > >> > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. > >> Here is their URL > >> http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > >> > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a > >> few times here in South > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > >> > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC > >> (human rights > >> commission) would the way to start if the intension is to > >> create public awareness of > >> the issue. > >> > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > >> would just ignore it. > >> > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship > >> between rights and internet > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to > >> work out what the > >> implementable rights-based public policy principles are that > >> we can work with on > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > >> this approach in our access work. > >> > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has > >> not engaged this terrain > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > >> > >> To: , > >> "Rui Correia" > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > >> Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > >> Horner" >> partners.co.uk> > >> > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a > >> complaint with the > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of > >> rights states > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of > >> hatred that > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that > >> constitutes > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other > >> legislation > >> > in SA? > >> > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet governance > >> issues can be > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights > >> lawyers and > >> > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human > >> rights and > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of > >> the only > >> > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the > >> current age > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an > >> inbuilt > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between different > >> rights and > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to > >> be done in > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable > >> of dealing > >> > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of > >> expression and > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national > >> human > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > >> > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many > >> new campaigns > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that > >> they should > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, > >> existing human > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all > >> scales. > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > >> principles based > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > >> universal > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > >> international human > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > >> insights... > >> > > >> > Any thoughts? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Lisa > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > >> Association for Progressive Communications > >> anriette at apc.org > >> http://www.apc.org > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------- > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes > >> short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > >> Costa Rica > >> > >> What is an i-name? > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > >> Costa Rica > >> > >> What is an i-name? > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 03:15:29 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:15:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC's workshop for the IGF In-Reply-To: <20080809061532.7AAD9A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080809061532.7AAD9A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: hi Parminder, I think a framework will be necessary from now allowing us to be involved deeply in the process. Baudouin 2008/8/9 Parminder > Hi All > > > > The good news from the IGF MAG is that all the three workshops sponsored by > the IGC, and one co-sponsored by it, have cleared the pre-selection process, > and in my reading, are almost certain to get slots at the IGF. > > > > They are now green color coded in the workshops list and the secretariat's > communication says that "The green category indicates workshops, which will > be allocated a slot at the IGF in Hyderabad." > > > > The three workshops being sponsored by the IGF are > > > > 1. Internet for All - Exploring a Rights-based Approach > > > > 1. The role and mandate of the IGF > > > > 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty > > > > > > And the one being co-sponsored with the IGP is "The Future of ICANN: After > the JPA, What?". > > > > The Secretariat communication does add a cautionary note > > > > "Please note that this is not a final assessment, but rather a work in > progress. The list is a 'positive list' of workshop proposals which offer > solid prospects for staging interesting and successful events. We have not > drawn up a 'negative list' of proposals we are rejecting. All workshops > still stand a chance of being chosen." > > > > And that > > > > "The selection process will be finalized at the next MAG Meeting in > September, taking into account the discussions during the Open > Consultations." > > > > But I think the workshops are thorough, in all likelihood. We should now > prepare for them intensely. It will be good to have a discussion on this > list on each workshop topic as a separate thread. The working groups also > need to get more active to finalize format and speakers and share it with > the members. > > > > > > 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 http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 12 03:24:49 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:54:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program Message-ID: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG expressing our concern on dilution of 'rights' issues' in the IGF agenda and program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG consultation.. I put this letter for IGC's consideration and possible endorsement. The letter can be seen at http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_t heme_of_the_igf , and the final text is also given below this email Two things are important to note in this respect. (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is 'owned', by the dynamic coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for any changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct 'yes' or 'no' reply is required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance will not be registered. Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. Thanks Parminder Rights as core theme of the IGF Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's IGF in Hyderabad. We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development. Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating 'Rights and the Internet' into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme. We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF. We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet governance processes and decisions. Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that they deserve. The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 12 03:34:19 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:34:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Yes. It's an important letter. Please endorse. Thanks, Adam >Hi All > >A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >agenda and program, and there was general >support that such a letter should be sent. The >Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >can be included in the official consultation >document for September MAG consultation.. > > I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > >The letter can be seen at >http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >, and the final text is also given below this >email > >Two things are important to note in this respect. > >(1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition,  and at >this stage, with only three days to go for the >submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >shape that it is. It will not be possible to >take in suggestions for any changes to the text >as a condition for endorsement. > >(2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >so.   > >I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >only indicate whether you do accept IGC >endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or >Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >will not be registered. > >Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >not, and take action accordingly. > >Thanks > >Parminder > > >Rights as core theme of the IGF > >Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > >The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >rights and the internet is made a core agenda >topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >is concerned that this topic appears to have >been pushed down the draft agenda for this >year's IGF in Hyderabad. >We are greatly concerned by the significant >reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >"diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >"Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >Rather than promoting positive discussion about >how to expand the opportunities that the >internet offers for realizing our fundamental >rights and freedoms as enshrined in >international law, the title of the main >security theme plays on negativity and fear of >the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >will focus on security measures, without >adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >do not erode the capacity of the internet to >support and advance human rights, for example to >expression, culture, privacy and development. >Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >participants are also concerned with the limited >consideration of rights on the program, we >respectfully ask the Secretariat and >Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >work towards incorporating ŒRights and the >Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >overarching theme. >We recognize that development of the draft >agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >still be possible to adapt the agenda without >undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >security would be better addressed in the >partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >could then bring these two strands together. >Another possibility to give rights a more >prominent stance would be to change the title of >the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >coalition would like to offer its support in >helping to shape such a session in partnership >with the workshop organisers who have opted to >merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >Group in order to ensure that rights receive >adequate attention at the IGF. >We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >Kind regards, >The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >acting as an umbrella coalition for all >individuals and groups who are concerned with >rights issues and internet governance. The >internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >to protect and expand our human rights as >protected by international law, and offers >significant new possibilities for development >and empowerment. However, the internet also >presents us with serious challenges, including >how to balance the social goods that stem from >the openness of the internet with the need for >security, and how to ensure that the benefits >that the internet brings are shared by all. The >Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >is working to address these issues, with a view >to ensuring that human rights are integral to >internet governance processes and decisions. >Our membership is diverse in terms of >stakeholders, geography and view points. For >example, some people in the coalition are >concerned with ensuring that our rights our >protected when we use the internet, some are >working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >that guide internet governance, and others are >seeking to establish rights to the internet so >that all have access to the benefits and >opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >members are keen to see a greater focus on >rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >these important issues can be given the >attention that they deserve. >The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >goal, has already received a significant degree >of wide spread interest and support. This has >included an appeal by illustrious people at the >second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >dedicated international conference in Rome with >attendees from over 70 countries, and an >official declaration by the governments of Italy >and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >as the Council of Europe and the Association for >Progressive Communications have made similar >requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >IGF. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 03:41:48 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:41:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program In-Reply-To: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I give my agrement and I say "YES" Baudouin 2008/8/12 Parminder > Hi All > > > > A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG > expressing our concern on dilution of 'rights' issues' in the IGF agenda and > program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter > that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG > consultation.. > > > > I put this letter for IGC's consideration and possible endorsement. > > > > The letter can be seen at > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf, and the final text is also given below this email > > > > Two things are important to note in this respect. > > > > (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is 'owned', by the dynamic > coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission > deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it > in the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for > any changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. > > > > (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic > coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in > endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The > option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. > > > > I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you > do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct 'yes' or 'no' reply is > required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional > acceptance will not be registered. > > > > Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours > from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on > endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > > > > > Rights as core theme of the IGF > *Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group,* > > The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests > that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for > the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, > rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that > this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's > IGF in Hyderabad. > > We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on > "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In > particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a > sub-item of the general "*Promoting Cyber-security and Trust*" main theme. > Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the > opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights > and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main > security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are > concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without > adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of > the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, > culture, privacy and development. > > Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other > coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited > consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat > and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to > add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work > towards incorporating 'Rights and the Internet' into the IGF Cairo agenda as > an overarching theme. > > We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but > feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue > impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme > main session "*Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness*" to focus on > rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering > sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary > session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to > give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main > theme, "*Promoting Cyber-security and Trust"* to, "*Balancing Security and > Trust with Openness and Freedoms* (or Rights)". > > As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on > 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape > such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to > merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the > Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive > adequate attention at the IGF. > > We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > > Kind regards, > The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > *About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition* > > The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella > coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights > issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of > opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by > international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development > and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious > challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the > openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that > the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic > Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, > with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet > governance processes and decisions. > > Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view > points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with > ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are > working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet > governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so > that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all > of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda > of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that > they deserve. > > The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda > item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide > spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious > people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's > workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome > with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the > governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the > Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have > made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 12 03:55:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:25:40 +0530 Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080812075550.C839BA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Adam (and Others) >No comments on the Hyderabad programme? If this question is for the IGC, then to reply that no, we haven't and wont be developing any comments for inclusion in the consultation documents. However we intend to work for a statement for the consultations proper. I propose some issues for this, which may be taken up for discussion. 1. Substantive issues (a) Rights issues in the IGF (b) How will the 'taking stock and way forward' session will be organized in view of the start of the process of IGF review in 2009. Innovative and purposeful possibilities. Is there any possibility of bottom up organising of this session as main session workshops are being organized. In any case, to ask for a role for the IGC which did orgnaise a workshop on this theme in Rio and will again do so. (c) Issues of rights and universalisation in access space (d) others 2. Process issues (a) Processes involved in organizing main session workshops and debated (this is the biggest promise of the new format, and I also have the greatest amount of concern in this area). Nature of MAG WGs, how formed, what kind of outside representation etc, diversity/ representation in outside representation (b) Individual workshops reporting back - any issues? (c) Dynamic coalitions - integration with main program space, structural involvement with main session workshops and debates (d) Others 3. Logistics 4. Funding of participation of civil society, especially from the developing countries. (I remember that last time they said there were some funds but their remained lack of clarity about whether they were used, if so how, if not why etc. I think we should right away write a letter on this issue to the secretariat and not even wait for the September consultation, which may be too late). Others. Pl add. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:54 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: > Importance: High > > No comments on the Hyderabad programme? > > Deadline is this coming Friday, August 15. > > Any organization or individual can send comments, all comments will > be considered in the revised programme. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:51 +0900 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Comments on the programme > > > > > >Deadline for comments on the Hyderabad programme paper is August 15. > >Paper: > > > > > >Comments received will be included in a revised document prepared > >for the September consultation (September 16, and 17-18.) > > > >Comments should be sent to by August 15. > > > >I know many of you have concerns about the programme, please make > >them known to the secretariat. These rolling documents are important > >to the MAG and are read and referred to by many stakeholders in the > >open consultations. If you have comments send them either as > >personal comments (individuals are recognized) or on behalf of your > >organization. Comments from the caucus would be ideal, but anyone > >interested can and should make their views known. Best not to wait. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Adam > > > > > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>Delivered-To: lists.cpsr.org-governance at npogroups.org > >>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0900 > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>From: Adam Peake > >>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send questions or > >>false-positive reports to help at electricembers.net > >>Subject: [governance] important: Comments on the programme paper - > deadline > >> August 15 > >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake > >>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>X-Sequence: 4724 > >>X-no-archive: yes > >>List-Id: > >>List-Archive: > >>List-Help: > >>List-Owner: > >>List-Post: > >>List-Subscribe: > > >>List-Unsubscribe: > >> > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>Comments on the Hyderabad programme paper should be submitted by August > 15. > >> > >>Programme is online at > >> > > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Adam > >>____________________________________________________________ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 05:23:09 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:23:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes Bill On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Yes. > > It's an important letter. > > Please endorse. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> Hi All >> >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >> agenda and program, and there was general >> support that such a letter should be sent. The >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >> can be included in the official consultation >> document for September MAG consultation.. >> >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. >> >> The letter can be seen at >> > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?r >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >> , and the final text is also given below this >> email >> >> Two things are important to note in this respect. >> >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition,  and at >> this stage, with only three days to go for the >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text >> as a condition for endorsement. >> >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >> so.   >> >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >> will not be registered. >> >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >> not, and take action accordingly. >> >> Thanks >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Rights as core theme of the IGF >> >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >> is concerned that this topic appears to have >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. >> We are greatly concerned by the significant >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about >> how to expand the opportunities that the >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in >> international law, the title of the main >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >> will focus on security measures, without >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to >> support and advance human rights, for example to >> expression, culture, privacy and development. >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >> participants are also concerned with the limited >> consideration of rights on the program, we >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >> overarching theme. >> We recognize that development of the draft >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >> security would be better addressed in the >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >> could then bring these two strands together. >> Another possibility to give rights a more >> prominent stance would be to change the title of >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >> coalition would like to offer its support in >> helping to shape such a session in partnership >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive >> adequate attention at the IGF. >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >> Kind regards, >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all >> individuals and groups who are concerned with >> rights issues and internet governance. The >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >> to protect and expand our human rights as >> protected by international law, and offers >> significant new possibilities for development >> and empowerment. However, the internet also >> presents us with serious challenges, including >> how to balance the social goods that stem from >> the openness of the internet with the need for >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >> is working to address these issues, with a view >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to >> internet governance processes and decisions. >> Our membership is diverse in terms of >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For >> example, some people in the coalition are >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our >> protected when we use the internet, some are >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >> that guide internet governance, and others are >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so >> that all have access to the benefits and >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >> members are keen to see a greater focus on >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >> these important issues can be given the >> attention that they deserve. >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >> goal, has already received a significant degree >> of wide spread interest and support. This has >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >> dedicated international conference in Rome with >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an >> official declaration by the governments of Italy >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for >> Progressive Communications have made similar >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >> IGF. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 12 05:27:00 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:27:00 +0900 Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: In-Reply-To: <20080812075550.BAE82EC010@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> References: <20080812075550.BAE82EC010@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: > Parminder, >Adam (and Others) > > >No comments on the Hyderabad programme? > >If this question is for the IGC, then to reply >that no, we haven¹t and wont be developing any >comments for inclusion in the consultation >documents. > It is a question for the caucus (I've been asking for a while now) and also for anyone else who might wish to comment now. Idea is to comment on the programme documents, could be on substance or process or both. Perhaps the CS MAG members have done a very poor job of communicating the importance of getting comments in during the public comment periods. By and large, IGF procedures are based around rolling documents, if you comment in time those comments will be taken into consideration. They will be included in synthesis papers, or revised versions of existing documents. Papers submitted during the public comment periods also tend to be read by participants before the consultations (MAG members will often refer to such documents -- honestly, quite a few do prepare for meetings, they read the available documents.) Miss the public comments and you are at a disadvantage. Basically always one step behind. But let's not argue about this until the next opportunity (Probably be a consultation in February 2009.) >However we intend to work for a statement for the consultations proper. > Which unfortunately will be too late to have much impact. Why not throw a few things together now? >I propose some issues for this, which may be taken up for discussion. > >1. Substantive issues > >(a)    Rights issues in the IGF OK. Endorse the Bill of Rights (and say we support it in our separate letter.) >(b)    How will the 'taking stock and way >forward' session will be organized in view of >the start of the process of IGF review in 2009. >Innovative and purposeful possibilities. Is >there any possibility of bottom up organising of >this session as main session workshops are being >organized. In any case, to ask for a role for >the IGC which did orgnaise a workshop on this >theme in Rio and will again do so. Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" and we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. >(c)     Issues of rights and universalisation in access space You won't get agreement now. But might by September. >(d)   others > Don't know so of course can't be done now. >2. Process issues > >(a)    Processes involved in organizing main >session workshops and debated (this is the >biggest promise of the new format, and I also >have the greatest amount of concern in this >area). Nature of MAG WGs, how formed, what kind >of outside representation etc, diversity/ >representation in outside representation   >(b)   Individual workshops reporting back ­ any issues? >(c)    Dynamic coalitions ­ integration with >main program space, structural involvement with >main session workshops and debates (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) >(d)   Others > >3. Logistics > I expect will be announced. Rumor has it all under control. But add a note saying (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >4. Funding of participation of civil society, >especially from the developing countries. (I >remember that last time they said there were >some funds but their remained lack of clarity >about whether they were used, if so how, if not >why etc. I think we should right away write a >letter on this issue to the secretariat and not >even wait for the September consultation, which >may be too late). > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately addressed. 1 to 5 make a letter. Why not just send it. Anyone object to 1-5 above? Adam >Others. Pl add. > >Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:54 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: > > Importance: High > > > > No comments on the Hyderabad programme? > > > > Deadline is this coming Friday, August 15. > > > > Any organization or individual can send comments, all comments will > > be considered in the revised programme. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:51 +0900 > > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Comments on the programme > > > > > > > > >Deadline for comments on the Hyderabad programme paper is August 15. > > >Paper: > > > > > > > > >Comments received will be included in a revised document prepared > > >for the September consultation (September 16, and 17-18.) > > > > > >Comments should be sent to by August 15. > > > > > >I know many of you have concerns about the programme, please make > > >them known to the secretariat. These rolling documents are important > > >to the MAG and are read and referred to by many stakeholders in the > > >open consultations. If you have comments send them either as > > >personal comments (individuals are recognized) or on behalf of your > > >organization. Comments from the caucus would be ideal, but anyone > > >interested can and should make their views known. Best not to wait. > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Adam > > > > > > > > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > >>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >>Delivered-To: lists.cpsr.org-governance at npogroups.org > > >>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0900 > > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >>From: Adam Peake > > >>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send questions or > > >>false-positive reports to help at electricembers.net > > >>Subject: [governance] important: Comments on the programme paper - > > deadline > > >> August 15 > > >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake > > >>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >>X-Sequence: 4724 > > >>X-no-archive: yes > > >>List-Id: > > >>List-Archive: > > >>List-Help: > > >>List-Owner: > > >>List-Post: > > >>List-Subscribe: > > > > >>List-Unsubscribe: > > >> > > >> > > >>Hi, > > >> > > >>Comments on the Hyderabad programme paper should be submitted by August > > 15. > > >> > > >>Programme is online at > > >> > > > > >> > > >>Thanks, > > >> > > >>Adam > > >>____________________________________________________________ > > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >>For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 05:33:32 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:33:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. Message-ID: Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. Just say yes or no. Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. Adam Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" and we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately addressed. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 12 06:28:31 2008 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:28:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Yes Babatope Soremi PMP On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent and > again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the process. > Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar (friendly > amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our > coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter > sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme of the > IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of > the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, > within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > Membership in this regard." > > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The > role and mandate of the IGF" > and we would > be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking > stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other > stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of > the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock > and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up > the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has > been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups > and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced > representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing > the main session workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will > have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing > the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main > session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, > particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information > about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, > Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries > and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the > September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for > allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been > identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it > is not being adequately addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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) | Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (www.pin.org.ng) | Nigeria Anti-Scam network (www.cybercrime.org.ng, www.treasure.org.ng) | Foundation Nigerianet (www.nigerianet.org) | Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 06:30:25 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:30:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] another letter -- MAG rotation, no news Message-ID: For your information, there's been no news from the Secretary General about rotation of the MAG. The open consultation will be held September 16, the MAG meeting September 17-18. The caucus should send a comment to the secretariat (addressing the SG) noting how difficult the MAG process is, particularly for people from developing countries and civil society. Single issue letter: no news of rotation at this late date causes difficulties for all stakeholders, but especially those from developing countries and CS, we are extremely disappointed. Letter has some meaning if sent before the SG makes his announcement, less relevance if after. So another for this week. I will ask Markus if he expects and announcement, but I think we should aim to send in 48 hours. Adam 14, August 2008 Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news regarding the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and accommodation arrangements in such a short period of time. It will be even more difficult for new members, up to one third of the group, and particularly for those from developing countries and from civil society. We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 06:53:52 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:23:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. I think this draft is good to take forward. My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go into the synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most prominently in such a paper. As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if needed, but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in clear strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling the document as too general and such. For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few changes in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the members for the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough consensus. As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to be able to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough consensus. (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat above) Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly, and in a duly open and participative manner. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the same title at IGF, Hyderabad, and we would be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the process of review and evaluation of the IGF. (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the funding support available for participation of civil society from developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > paper. > > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > a central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > "The role and mandate of the IGF" > and > we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > influencing the main session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 06:56:57 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:56:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A16C79.3070809@wzb.eu> I support the endorsement of this letter too. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Yes > > Bill > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > >> Yes. >> >> It's an important letter. >> >> Please endorse. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >>> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >>> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >>> agenda and program, and there was general >>> support that such a letter should be sent. The >>> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >>> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >>> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >>> can be included in the official consultation >>> document for September MAG consultation.. >>> >>> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. >>> >>> The letter can be seen at >>> >> heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?r >>> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >>> , and the final text is also given below this >>> email >>> >>> Two things are important to note in this respect. >>> >>> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >>> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at >>> this stage, with only three days to go for the >>> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >>> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >>> shape that it is. It will not be possible to >>> take in suggestions for any changes to the text >>> as a condition for endorsement. >>> >>> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >>> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >>> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >>> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >>> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >>> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >>> so. >>> >>> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >>> only indicate whether you do accept IGC >>> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or >>> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >>> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >>> will not be registered. >>> >>> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >>> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >>> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >>> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >>> not, and take action accordingly. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> Rights as core theme of the IGF >>> >>> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, >>> >>> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >>> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >>> rights and the internet is made a core agenda >>> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >>> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >>> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >>> is concerned that this topic appears to have >>> been pushed down the draft agenda for this >>> year's IGF in Hyderabad. >>> We are greatly concerned by the significant >>> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >>> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >>> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >>> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >>> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >>> Rather than promoting positive discussion about >>> how to expand the opportunities that the >>> internet offers for realizing our fundamental >>> rights and freedoms as enshrined in >>> international law, the title of the main >>> security theme plays on negativity and fear of >>> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >>> will focus on security measures, without >>> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >>> do not erode the capacity of the internet to >>> support and advance human rights, for example to >>> expression, culture, privacy and development. >>> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >>> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >>> participants are also concerned with the limited >>> consideration of rights on the program, we >>> respectfully ask the Secretariat and >>> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >>> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >>> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >>> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the >>> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >>> overarching theme. >>> We recognize that development of the draft >>> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >>> still be possible to adapt the agenda without >>> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >>> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >>> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >>> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >>> security would be better addressed in the >>> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >>> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >>> could then bring these two strands together. >>> Another possibility to give rights a more >>> prominent stance would be to change the title of >>> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >>> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >>> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >>> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >>> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >>> coalition would like to offer its support in >>> helping to shape such a session in partnership >>> with the workshop organisers who have opted to >>> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >>> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >>> Group in order to ensure that rights receive >>> adequate attention at the IGF. >>> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >>> Kind regards, >>> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >>> >>> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >>> >>> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >>> acting as an umbrella coalition for all >>> individuals and groups who are concerned with >>> rights issues and internet governance. The >>> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >>> to protect and expand our human rights as >>> protected by international law, and offers >>> significant new possibilities for development >>> and empowerment. However, the internet also >>> presents us with serious challenges, including >>> how to balance the social goods that stem from >>> the openness of the internet with the need for >>> security, and how to ensure that the benefits >>> that the internet brings are shared by all. The >>> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >>> is working to address these issues, with a view >>> to ensuring that human rights are integral to >>> internet governance processes and decisions. >>> Our membership is diverse in terms of >>> stakeholders, geography and view points. For >>> example, some people in the coalition are >>> concerned with ensuring that our rights our >>> protected when we use the internet, some are >>> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >>> that guide internet governance, and others are >>> seeking to establish rights to the internet so >>> that all have access to the benefits and >>> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >>> members are keen to see a greater focus on >>> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >>> these important issues can be given the >>> attention that they deserve. >>> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >>> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >>> goal, has already received a significant degree >>> of wide spread interest and support. This has >>> included an appeal by illustrious people at the >>> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >>> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >>> dedicated international conference in Rome with >>> attendees from over 70 countries, and an >>> official declaration by the governments of Italy >>> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >>> as the Council of Europe and the Association for >>> Progressive Communications have made similar >>> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >>> IGF. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 07:22:20 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:22:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on the 15th. Adam >Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. > >I think this draft is good to take forward. > >My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go into the >synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most prominently in >such a paper. > >As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the >consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if needed, >but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in clear >strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling the >document as too general and such. > >For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which >says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few changes >in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the members for >the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough >consensus. > >As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to be able >to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough >consensus.  > >(suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat >above) > >Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper > >(1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter >sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core >theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a >central theme of the IGF process. > >(2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this >session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main >session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the >continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, >within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >Membership in this regard." > >it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly, and >in a duly open and participative manner. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The >role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the >same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > and we would >be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing >of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in >the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in >collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work >with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the >process of review and evaluation of the IGF. > >(3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up >the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been >very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and >some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing >the main session workshops? > >The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more >transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured >that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal >opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session >workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) > >(4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as >a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is >not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the >funding support available for participation of civil society from >developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too >late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that >immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. > >Thank you, > >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme >> paper. >> >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >> >> Just say yes or no. >> >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >> >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >> a central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >> Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >> >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >> and >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >> workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >> influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >> >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >> addressed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 08:22:11 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:22:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0808120522mfab3061p29abd70089b1c73b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeffrey you ask very relevant and crucial questions. There are several complementary ways to pursue our goal for netizens to be able to enjoy their rights online. Going straight to the supreme court does not seem the most feasible and viable one. Our mission statement describes three instruments http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?statement_for_the_geneva_consultations_26_feb_2008 I am on the road these days so i can not engage in this thread right now, but i will post an attempt to describe/define "what we are and what we want" within the next weeks. One key element is what tools we want to work on. best max On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Jaco and all, > > Well there are a few other courts to go through before one > even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the supreme > Court in the US. That's not enforcement in any event. That's > adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher course. > > Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme Court, > but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually been heard > in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these instances > either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient to be > heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. > > So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly > provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend > such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or Rights? > Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other countries? > Whom would enforce those? The newly formed civil rights division > of the International House of Justice perhaps? How would such > new rights be so recognized by such an august body without nearly > every country's legal structure amended appropriately? And than > yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in multi-jurisdictional > cases? How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? > And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? Interpol > perhaps? < shrug > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme Court. > > > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of Rights. What > > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, whom would > > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US Congress, > > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Lisa, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. > > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > > >> > > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > > >> > > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier > > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > >> > > >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", > > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Jaco > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > > >> Horner wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Max and all > > >> > > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally > > >> interested in your work and in exploring potentials for > > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and > > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? > > >> > > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those > > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read > > >> mode now! > > >> > > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom > > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that > > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different > > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, > > >> would shape a global communications environment that would > > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > > >> environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, > > >> code and content. The latest draft of the principles is > > >> available and open for comment at > > >> > > >> > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment > . > > >> > > >> The principles and values that they express are purposefully > > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. > > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for > > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For > > >> example, our project partners are currently working to > > >> elaborate what they might mean in different country > > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for > > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where > > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share certain > > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > >> > > >> We have been working to base all of our work so far in > > >> international human rights standards, in particular freedom > > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right to > > >> participation in government. We've taken an expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) > > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the world > > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of > > >> expression, including the notion that governments are > > >> responsible for putting the necessary > > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be > > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we > > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments and > > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already > > >> contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, > > >> our energy should be focused on further developing and > > >> upholding what we have already, for example, further > > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in > > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton > > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > > >> understanding about what international rights standards and > > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > > >> > > >> The research that I referred to before is intended to > > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression is being supported in > > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, > > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. > > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting > > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > > >> international human rights system. In this way, if the > > >> framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human > > >> rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within > > >> the discussions. > > >> > > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these > > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive > > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and > > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' > > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most > > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the > > >> world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why > > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, > > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > >> > > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear > > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to > > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on > > >> any of these issues. > > >> > > >> Many thanks, > > >> > > >> Lisa > > >> > > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of > > >> Max Senges > > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > >> dear lisa and all > > >> > > >> Lisa wrote: > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center > > >> for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by > > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame research > > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > > >> the fall. > > >> > > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the > > >> other research undertaken to better understand a Rights > > >> based approach to IG. > > >> > > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners > > >> research? > > >> > > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much > > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, > > >> share and avoid duplication > > >> > > >> best > > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hallo all > > >> > > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission > > >> is the appropriate > > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate > > >> speech issues quite often. > > >> > > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. > > >> Here is their URL > > >> http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > >> > > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a > > >> few times here in South > > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember > > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > > >> > > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC > > >> (human rights > > >> commission) would the way to start if the intension is to > > >> create public awareness of > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is > > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > > >> would just ignore it. > > >> > > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship > > >> between rights and internet > > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since > > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to > > >> work out what the > > >> implementable rights-based public policy principles are that > > >> we can work with on > > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example > > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > > >> this approach in our access work. > > >> > > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has > > >> not engaged this terrain > > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > > >> > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> > > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > > >> > > >> To: , > > >> "Rui Correia" > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site > > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > > >> Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > > >> Horner" > >> partners.co.uk> > > >> > > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a > > >> complaint with the > > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of > > >> rights states > > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of > > >> hatred that > > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that > > >> constitutes > > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other > > >> legislation > > >> > in SA? > > >> > > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet governance > > >> issues can be > > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights > > >> lawyers and > > >> > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human > > >> rights and > > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of > > >> the only > > >> > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the > > >> current age > > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an > > >> inbuilt > > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between different > > >> rights and > > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to > > >> be done in > > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable > > >> of dealing > > >> > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of > > >> expression and > > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national > > >> human > > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > >> > > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many > > >> new campaigns > > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that > > >> they should > > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, > > >> existing human > > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all > > >> scales. > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > > >> > Any thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Lisa > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > > >> Association for Progressive Communications > > >> anriette at apc.org > > >> http://www.apc.org > > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out > > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds > > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is > > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and > > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes > > >> short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the > > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so > > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > > =============================================================== > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > Costa Rica > > > > What is an i-name? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 12 08:27:46 2008 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:27:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: References: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A181C2.6090007@jacquelinemorris.com> I agree Jacqueline Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on > the 15th. > > Adam > > > > >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. >> >> I think this draft is good to take forward. >> >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go >> into the >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most >> prominently in >> such a paper. >> >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if >> needed, >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in >> clear >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling >> the >> document as too general and such. >> >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few >> changes >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the >> members for >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough >> consensus. >> >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to >> be able >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough >> consensus. >> >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat >> above) >> >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a >> core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a >> central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >> Membership in this regard." >> >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >> promptly, and >> in a duly open and participative manner. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on >> "The >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another >> with the >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad, >> and >> we would >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the >> organizing >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward >> session, in >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being >> done in >> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to >> work >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up >> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has >> been >> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working >> groups and >> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups >> organizing >> the main session workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be >> assured >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main >> session >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been >> identified as >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this >> issue is >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know >> about the >> funding support available for participation of civil society from >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be >> too >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>> programme >>> paper. >>> >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>> >>> Just say yes or no. >>> >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>> >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>> >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >>> a central theme of the IGF process. >>> >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >>> Agenda, >>> >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >>> >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >>> promptly. >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>> and >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>> >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>> workshops? >>> >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>> influencing the main session debates.) >>> >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>> >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>> addressed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 12 09:27:03 2008 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:27:03 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program In-Reply-To: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I would like to fully support the letter and thank those who took the initiative. 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 Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. August 2008 09:25 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program Hi All A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG expressing our concern on dilution of ‘rights’ issues’ in the IGF agenda and program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG consultation.. I put this letter for IGC’s consideration and possible endorsement. The letter can be seen at http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf , and the final text is also given below this email Two things are important to note in this respect. (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is ‘owned’, by the dynamic coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for any changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct ‘yes’ or ‘no’ reply is required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance will not be registered. Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. Thanks Parminder Rights as core theme of the IGF Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's IGF in Hyderabad. We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development. Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating ‘Rights and the Internet’ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme. We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF. We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet governance processes and decisions. Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that they deserve. The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 12 10:50:30 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:50:30 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Yes Wolfgang ________________________________ Da: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Inviato: mar 12.08.2008 09:34 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Oggetto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights Yes. It's an important letter. Please endorse. Thanks, Adam >Hi All > >A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >on dilution of OErights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >agenda and program, and there was general >support that such a letter should be sent. The >Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >can be included in the official consultation >document for September MAG consultation.. > > I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > >The letter can be seen at >http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >, and the final text is also given below this >email > >Two things are important to note in this respect. > >(1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >is OEowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at >this stage, with only three days to go for the >submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >shape that it is. It will not be possible to >take in suggestions for any changes to the text >as a condition for endorsement. > >(2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >so. > >I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >only indicate whether you do accept IGC >endorsing the letter or not. A direct OEyes¹ or >OEno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >will not be registered. > >Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >not, and take action accordingly. > >Thanks > >Parminder > > >Rights as core theme of the IGF > >Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > >The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >rights and the internet is made a core agenda >topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >is concerned that this topic appears to have >been pushed down the draft agenda for this >year's IGF in Hyderabad. >We are greatly concerned by the significant >reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >"diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >"Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >Rather than promoting positive discussion about >how to expand the opportunities that the >internet offers for realizing our fundamental >rights and freedoms as enshrined in >international law, the title of the main >security theme plays on negativity and fear of >the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >will focus on security measures, without >adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >do not erode the capacity of the internet to >support and advance human rights, for example to >expression, culture, privacy and development. >Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >participants are also concerned with the limited >consideration of rights on the program, we >respectfully ask the Secretariat and >Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >work towards incorporating OERights and the >Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >overarching theme. >We recognize that development of the draft >agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >still be possible to adapt the agenda without >undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >security would be better addressed in the >partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >could then bring these two strands together. >Another possibility to give rights a more >prominent stance would be to change the title of >the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >coalition would like to offer its support in >helping to shape such a session in partnership >with the workshop organisers who have opted to >merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >Group in order to ensure that rights receive >adequate attention at the IGF. >We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >Kind regards, >The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >acting as an umbrella coalition for all >individuals and groups who are concerned with >rights issues and internet governance. The >internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >to protect and expand our human rights as >protected by international law, and offers >significant new possibilities for development >and empowerment. However, the internet also >presents us with serious challenges, including >how to balance the social goods that stem from >the openness of the internet with the need for >security, and how to ensure that the benefits >that the internet brings are shared by all. The >Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >is working to address these issues, with a view >to ensuring that human rights are integral to >internet governance processes and decisions. >Our membership is diverse in terms of >stakeholders, geography and view points. For >example, some people in the coalition are >concerned with ensuring that our rights our >protected when we use the internet, some are >working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >that guide internet governance, and others are >seeking to establish rights to the internet so >that all have access to the benefits and >opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >members are keen to see a greater focus on >rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >these important issues can be given the >attention that they deserve. >The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >goal, has already received a significant degree >of wide spread interest and support. This has >included an appeal by illustrious people at the >second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >dedicated international conference in Rome with >attendees from over 70 countries, and an >official declaration by the governments of Italy >and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >as the Council of Europe and the Association for >Progressive Communications have made similar >requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >IGF. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:11:08 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:11:08 -0300 Subject: R: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48A1A80C.7010809@rits.org.br> Yes. --c.a. Kleinwächter wrote: > Yes > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Da: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Inviato: mar 12.08.2008 09:34 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > > > Yes. > > It's an important letter. > > Please endorse. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> Hi All >> >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >> on dilution of OErights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >> agenda and program, and there was general >> support that such a letter should be sent. The >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >> can be included in the official consultation >> document for September MAG consultation.. >> >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. >> >> The letter can be seen at >> http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >> , and the final text is also given below this >> email >> >> Two things are important to note in this respect. >> >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >> is OEowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at >> this stage, with only three days to go for the >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text >> as a condition for endorsement. >> >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >> so. >> >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct OEyes¹ or >> OEno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >> will not be registered. >> >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >> not, and take action accordingly. >> >> Thanks >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Rights as core theme of the IGF >> >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >> is concerned that this topic appears to have >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. >> We are greatly concerned by the significant >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about >> how to expand the opportunities that the >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in >> international law, the title of the main >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >> will focus on security measures, without >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to >> support and advance human rights, for example to >> expression, culture, privacy and development. >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >> participants are also concerned with the limited >> consideration of rights on the program, we >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >> work towards incorporating OERights and the >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >> overarching theme. >> We recognize that development of the draft >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >> security would be better addressed in the >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >> could then bring these two strands together. >> Another possibility to give rights a more >> prominent stance would be to change the title of >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >> coalition would like to offer its support in >> helping to shape such a session in partnership >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive >> adequate attention at the IGF. >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >> Kind regards, >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all >> individuals and groups who are concerned with >> rights issues and internet governance. The >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >> to protect and expand our human rights as >> protected by international law, and offers >> significant new possibilities for development >> and empowerment. However, the internet also >> presents us with serious challenges, including >> how to balance the social goods that stem from >> the openness of the internet with the need for >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >> is working to address these issues, with a view >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to >> internet governance processes and decisions. >> Our membership is diverse in terms of >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For >> example, some people in the coalition are >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our >> protected when we use the internet, some are >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >> that guide internet governance, and others are >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so >> that all have access to the benefits and >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >> members are keen to see a greater focus on >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >> these important issues can be given the >> attention that they deserve. >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >> goal, has already received a significant degree >> of wide spread interest and support. This has >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >> dedicated international conference in Rome with >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an >> official declaration by the governments of Italy >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for >> Progressive Communications have made similar >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >> IGF. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:14:19 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:14:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <48A181C2.6090007@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: <006201c8fc8e$182850b0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Gurstein, Michael (2007) What is Community Informatics (and Why Does It Matter)? POLIMETRICA, Milan http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r eading.pdf Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 http://www.communityinformatics.net tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: August 12, 2008 5:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad I agree Jacqueline Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on > the 15th. > > Adam > > > > >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. >> >> I think this draft is good to take forward. >> >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go >> into the >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most >> prominently in >> such a paper. >> >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till >> the consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, >> if needed, but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points >> and put in clear >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling >> the >> document as too general and such. >> >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, >> which says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making >> a few changes in the text under these points. I can take suggestions >> from the members for >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough >> consensus. >> >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to >> be able >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough >> consensus. >> >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the >> caveat >> above) >> >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a >> core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a >> central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >> Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >> Membership in this regard." >> >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >> promptly, and >> in a duly open and participative manner. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on >> "The >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another >> with the >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad, >> and >> we would >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the >> organizing >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward >> session, in >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being >> done in >> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to >> work >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up >> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has >> been >> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working >> groups and >> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups >> organizing >> the main session workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be >> assured that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will >> have an equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >> developing the main session >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been >> identified as >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this >> issue is >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know >> about the >> funding support available for participation of civil society from >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be >> too >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>> programme >>> paper. >>> >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>> >>> Just say yes or no. >>> >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>> >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>> >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports >>> the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as >>> core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must >>> remain a central theme of the IGF process. >>> >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the >>> other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of >>> the Tunis Agenda, >>> >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the >>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal >>> consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its >>> creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this >>> regard." >>> >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >>> promptly. >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a >>> workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>> and >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>> >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>> workshops? >>> >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>> influencing the main session debates.) >>> >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>> >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>> addressed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:29:45 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:29:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <006f01c8fc90$413b3ab0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Yes, MG ________________________________ Da: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Inviato: mar 12.08.2008 09:34 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Oggetto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights Yes. It's an important letter. Please endorse. Thanks, Adam >Hi All > >A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >on dilution of OErights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >agenda and program, and there was general >support that such a letter should be sent. The >Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >can be included in the official consultation >document for September MAG consultation.. > > I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > >The letter can be seen at >core_theme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/ind ex.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >, and the final text is also given below this >email > >Two things are important to note in this respect. > >(1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >is OEowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at >this stage, with only three days to go for the >submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >shape that it is. It will not be possible to >take in suggestions for any changes to the text >as a condition for endorsement. > >(2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >so. > >I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >only indicate whether you do accept IGC >endorsing the letter or not. A direct OEyes¹ or >OEno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >will not be registered. > >Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >not, and take action accordingly. > >Thanks > >Parminder > > >Rights as core theme of the IGF > >Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > >The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >rights and the internet is made a core agenda >topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >is concerned that this topic appears to have >been pushed down the draft agenda for this >year's IGF in Hyderabad. >We are greatly concerned by the significant >reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >"diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >"Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >Rather than promoting positive discussion about >how to expand the opportunities that the >internet offers for realizing our fundamental >rights and freedoms as enshrined in >international law, the title of the main >security theme plays on negativity and fear of >the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >will focus on security measures, without >adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >do not erode the capacity of the internet to >support and advance human rights, for example to >expression, culture, privacy and development. >Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >participants are also concerned with the limited >consideration of rights on the program, we >respectfully ask the Secretariat and >Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >work towards incorporating OERights and the >Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >overarching theme. >We recognize that development of the draft >agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >still be possible to adapt the agenda without >undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >security would be better addressed in the >partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >could then bring these two strands together. >Another possibility to give rights a more >prominent stance would be to change the title of >the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >coalition would like to offer its support in >helping to shape such a session in partnership >with the workshop organisers who have opted to >merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >Group in order to ensure that rights receive >adequate attention at the IGF. >We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind >regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >acting as an umbrella coalition for all >individuals and groups who are concerned with >rights issues and internet governance. The >internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >to protect and expand our human rights as >protected by international law, and offers >significant new possibilities for development >and empowerment. However, the internet also >presents us with serious challenges, including >how to balance the social goods that stem from >the openness of the internet with the need for >security, and how to ensure that the benefits >that the internet brings are shared by all. The >Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >is working to address these issues, with a view >to ensuring that human rights are integral to >internet governance processes and decisions. >Our membership is diverse in terms of >stakeholders, geography and view points. For >example, some people in the coalition are >concerned with ensuring that our rights our >protected when we use the internet, some are >working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >that guide internet governance, and others are >seeking to establish rights to the internet so >that all have access to the benefits and >opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >members are keen to see a greater focus on >rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >these important issues can be given the >attention that they deserve. >The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >goal, has already received a significant degree >of wide spread interest and support. This has >included an appeal by illustrious people at the >second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >dedicated international conference in Rome with >attendees from over 70 countries, and an >official declaration by the governments of Italy >and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >as the Council of Europe and the Association for >Progressive Communications have made similar >requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >IGF. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:34:28 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:34:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F5B@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> yes Lee ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 3:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program Hi All A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG expressing our concern on dilution of 'rights' issues' in the IGF agenda and program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG consultation.. I put this letter for IGC's consideration and possible endorsement. The letter can be seen at http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf , and the final text is also given below this email Two things are important to note in this respect. (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is 'owned', by the dynamic coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for any changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct 'yes' or 'no' reply is required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance will not be registered. Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. Thanks Parminder Rights as core theme of the IGF Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's IGF in Hyderabad. We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development. Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating 'Rights and the Internet' into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme. We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF. We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet governance processes and decisions. Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that they deserve. The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 12 11:41:49 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:11:49 -0430 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <48a1af46.1a36720a.0c96.fffff145@mx.google.com> Yes. -----Mensaje original----- De: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 05:04 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Asunto: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. Just say yes or no. Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. Adam Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" and we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately addressed. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:41:49 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:11:49 -0430 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <48a1af49.1a36720a.0c96.fffff14e@mx.google.com> Yes! -----Mensaje original----- De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights Yes Bill On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Yes. > > It's an important letter. > > Please endorse. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> Hi All >> >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >> agenda and program, and there was general >> support that such a letter should be sent. The >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >> can be included in the official consultation >> document for September MAG consultation.. >> >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. >> >> The letter can be seen at >> > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? r >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >> , and the final text is also given below this >> email >> >> Two things are important to note in this respect. >> >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition,  and at >> this stage, with only three days to go for the >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text >> as a condition for endorsement. >> >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >> so.   >> >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >> will not be registered. >> >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >> not, and take action accordingly. >> >> Thanks >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Rights as core theme of the IGF >> >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >> is concerned that this topic appears to have >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. >> We are greatly concerned by the significant >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about >> how to expand the opportunities that the >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in >> international law, the title of the main >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >> will focus on security measures, without >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to >> support and advance human rights, for example to >> expression, culture, privacy and development. >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >> participants are also concerned with the limited >> consideration of rights on the program, we >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >> overarching theme. >> We recognize that development of the draft >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >> security would be better addressed in the >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >> could then bring these two strands together. >> Another possibility to give rights a more >> prominent stance would be to change the title of >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >> coalition would like to offer its support in >> helping to shape such a session in partnership >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive >> adequate attention at the IGF. >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. >> Kind regards, >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all >> individuals and groups who are concerned with >> rights issues and internet governance. The >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >> to protect and expand our human rights as >> protected by international law, and offers >> significant new possibilities for development >> and empowerment. However, the internet also >> presents us with serious challenges, including >> how to balance the social goods that stem from >> the openness of the internet with the need for >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >> is working to address these issues, with a view >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to >> internet governance processes and decisions. >> Our membership is diverse in terms of >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For >> example, some people in the coalition are >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our >> protected when we use the internet, some are >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >> that guide internet governance, and others are >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so >> that all have access to the benefits and >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >> members are keen to see a greater focus on >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >> these important issues can be given the >> attention that they deserve. >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >> goal, has already received a significant degree >> of wide spread interest and support. This has >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >> dedicated international conference in Rome with >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an >> official declaration by the governments of Italy >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for >> Progressive Communications have made similar >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >> IGF. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 12 11:45:04 2008 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program Message-ID: <76173.21711.qm@web34601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "YES" Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Financial Investment Adviser Tel: 91-821-2342612; 0091 9449323325 ----- Original Message ---- From: "wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:57:03 PM Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program I would like to fully support the letter and thank those who took the initiative. 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 Von:Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. August 2008 09:25 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights issues' in the IGF program Hi All A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG expressing our concern on dilution of ‘rights’ issues’ in the IGF agenda and program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG consultation.. I put this letter for IGC’s consideration and possible endorsement. The letter can be seen at http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf , and the final text is also given below this email Quick jump: What's new - Weblogs Edit Comment Loading... * New page * Print * Tools * Duplicate Page * Rename Page * Export as HTML * Export to PDF * Export to Word V 20 Tags {macro escape_tag_name(t)} ${t.name|h|quoter} {/macro} {for t in tags}
  • ${t.name} {if Socialtext.perms.edit} {var escaped_tag_name_value = escape_tag_name(t)} [x] {/if}
    • {/for} {var lastIndex = matches.length-1} {for t in matches} ${t.name}{if t_index != lastIndex}, {/if} {/for} {"maxCount":0,"tags":[]} {"maxCount":18,"tags":[{"page_count":18,"name":"Welcome"},{"page_count":1,"name":"Internet Freedom Weblog"}]} There are no tags for this page. Add tag Save tag Suggestions: Incoming Links * internet bill of rights Attachments {for a in attachments}
  • ${a.name}
    • {/for} {for a in attachments} ${a.name} {if a.name.match(/\.(zip|tar|tar.gz|tgz)$/)} (extract) {/if} ${a.uploader} ${a.date} ${a.displaylength} {/for} internet bill of rights Rights as core theme of the IGF Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's IGF in Hyderabad. We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development. Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned over the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating ‘Rights and the Internet’ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme. We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF. We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet governance processes and decisions. Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that they deserve. The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF." Two things are important to note in this respect. (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is ‘owned’, by the dynamic coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for any changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct ‘yes’ or ‘no’ reply is required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance will not be registered. Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. Thanks Parminder Rights as core theme of the IGF Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's IGF in Hyderabad. We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development. Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating ‘Rights and the Internet’ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme. We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF. We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind regards, The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet governance processes and decisions. Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that they deserve. The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Aug 12 11:43:12 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:43:12 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0278CEB6@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Atanu Garai This is a very good question! I also wonder why ISO do not take into account all proposals coming from the disability movement asking for accessible standards so as all technology can be used by ALL persons without restrictions and complications! I have in my mind, so many examples on what could be done by standardisations so as special adjustments or adaptations would not be needed. There are also numerous documents written by the disability movement on "design for all" or Universal Design". It is because this ignorance persons with disabilities are still marginalised and excluded - but we do exist! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: atanu garai [mailto:atanugarai.lists at gmail.com] Skickat: den 8 augusti 2008 16:42 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? The International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative that members of the public have access to those standards so that those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and contribution from the national standards organizations which are part of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income comes from membership fees (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible for all internet users and making these standards available openly accessible can further augment development of standardised public systems. Atanu Garai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 12:40:55 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:40:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad References: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <48A181C2.6090007@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F5C@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> I agree Lee -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 8:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad I agree Jacqueline Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on > the 15th. > > Adam > > > > >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. >> >> I think this draft is good to take forward. >> >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go >> into the >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most >> prominently in >> such a paper. >> >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if >> needed, >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in >> clear >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling >> the >> document as too general and such. >> >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few >> changes >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the >> members for >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough >> consensus. >> >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to >> be able >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough >> consensus. >> >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat >> above) >> >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a >> core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a >> central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >> Membership in this regard." >> >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >> promptly, and >> in a duly open and participative manner. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on >> "The >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another >> with the >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad, >> and >> we would >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the >> organizing >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward >> session, in >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being >> done in >> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to >> work >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up >> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has >> been >> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working >> groups and >> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups >> organizing >> the main session workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be >> assured >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main >> session >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been >> identified as >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this >> issue is >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know >> about the >> funding support available for participation of civil society from >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be >> too >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>> programme >>> paper. >>> >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>> >>> Just say yes or no. >>> >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>> >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>> >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >>> a central theme of the IGF process. >>> >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >>> Agenda, >>> >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >>> >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >>> promptly. >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>> and >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>> >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>> workshops? >>> >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>> influencing the main session debates.) >>> >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>> >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>> addressed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 12 13:36:21 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:36:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080812173621.GA7917@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 06:33:32PM +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. YES. > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent > and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the > process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar > (friendly amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our > coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a > central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of > the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > "The role and mandate of the IGF" > and we > would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during > the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and > all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and > evaluation of the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in > the taking stock and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main session > workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in > these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure > that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working > groups organizing the main session workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing > the main session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), > information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and > refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We > note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth > process for allocating funds. Improving participating from developing > countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we > are concerned that it is not being adequately addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Aug 12 15:55:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:55:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. Old language: > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > begins promptly. Proposed change: It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF participants begins promptly. Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme paper. > > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > a central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > "The role and mandate of the IGF" > and > we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > influencing the main session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 15:57:06 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:57:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] another letter -- MAG rotation, no news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA15@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I strongly support this letter. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > 14, August 2008 > Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: > > We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news > regarding the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group > (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > > The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is > extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and > accommodation arrangements in such a short period of time. It will > be even more difficult for new members, up to one third of the group, > and particularly for those from developing countries and from civil > society. > > We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused > by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the > IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and > ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. > > Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal > capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the > MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 16:07:37 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:07:37 -0600 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Dear Jeffrey, please read my answer to your email below.... > Well there are a few other courts to go through before one > even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the supreme > Court in the US. Agree. The bottom line is to have this new right added as a new fundamental right in the Constitution. This will have implications not just for other Courts, but also for many Government offices, including the FCC. > That's not enforcement in any event. That's > adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher course. I am always ready to learn more! ;-) > > > Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme Court, > but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually been heard > in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these instances > either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient to be > heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. Agree. > > > So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly > provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend > such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or Rights? Can you please be kind to write this question again?. I want to be sure that I understand the question before answering it. > > Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other countries? Ideally, every country should include this new right in the Constitution. In Costa Rica, he Congress is studying to include this new fundamental right in the Constitution. In Germany, one of the countries more advanced in the world in legal developments, the Constitutional Court (Supreme Court) already added this new fundamental right, a few months ago. > > Whom would enforce those? Each country has its own systems to enforce human/fundamental rights. It goes in many levels, as you wrote before (several types of Courts, and even Government). > The newly formed civil rights division > of the International House of Justice perhaps? Of course they can help, but most of the work will be in the National Courts. > How would such > new rights be so recognized by such an august body without nearly > every country's legal structure amended appropriately? Agree. First the country legal structure has to change. > And than > yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in multi-jurisdictional > cases? Same as today with other fundamental rights. > How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? Interpol > perhaps? < shrug > Same as today with other fundamental rights. Thank you for your time Jeffrey!, > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme Court. > > > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of Rights. What > > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, whom would > > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US Congress, > > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Lisa, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. > > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > > >> > > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > > >> > > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier > > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > >> > > >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", > > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Jaco > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > > >> Horner wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Max and all > > >> > > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally > > >> interested in your work and in exploring potentials for > > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and > > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? > > >> > > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those > > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read > > >> mode now! > > >> > > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom > > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that > > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different > > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, > > >> would shape a global communications environment that would > > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > > >> environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, > > >> code and content. The latest draft of the principles is > > >> available and open for comment at > > >> > > >> > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment > . > > >> > > >> The principles and values that they express are purposefully > > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. > > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for > > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For > > >> example, our project partners are currently working to > > >> elaborate what they might mean in different country > > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for > > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where > > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share certain > > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > >> > > >> We have been working to base all of our work so far in > > >> international human rights standards, in particular freedom > > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right to > > >> participation in government. We've taken an expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) > > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the world > > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of > > >> expression, including the notion that governments are > > >> responsible for putting the necessary > > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be > > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we > > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments and > > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already > > >> contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, > > >> our energy should be focused on further developing and > > >> upholding what we have already, for example, further > > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in > > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton > > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > > >> understanding about what international rights standards and > > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > > >> > > >> The research that I referred to before is intended to > > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression is being supported in > > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, > > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. > > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting > > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > > >> international human rights system. In this way, if the > > >> framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human > > >> rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within > > >> the discussions. > > >> > > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these > > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive > > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and > > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' > > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most > > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the > > >> world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why > > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, > > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > >> > > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear > > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to > > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on > > >> any of these issues. > > >> > > >> Many thanks, > > >> > > >> Lisa > > >> > > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of > > >> Max Senges > > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > >> dear lisa and all > > >> > > >> Lisa wrote: > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center > > >> for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by > > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame research > > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > > >> the fall. > > >> > > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the > > >> other research undertaken to better understand a Rights > > >> based approach to IG. > > >> > > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners > > >> research? > > >> > > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much > > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, > > >> share and avoid duplication > > >> > > >> best > > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hallo all > > >> > > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission > > >> is the appropriate > > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate > > >> speech issues quite often. > > >> > > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. > > >> Here is their URL > > >> http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > >> > > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a > > >> few times here in South > > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember > > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > > >> > > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC > > >> (human rights > > >> commission) would the way to start if the intension is to > > >> create public awareness of > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is > > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > > >> would just ignore it. > > >> > > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship > > >> between rights and internet > > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since > > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to > > >> work out what the > > >> implementable rights-based public policy principles are that > > >> we can work with on > > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example > > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > > >> this approach in our access work. > > >> > > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has > > >> not engaged this terrain > > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > > >> > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> > > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > > >> > > >> To: , > > >> "Rui Correia" > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site > > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > > >> Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > > >> Horner" > >> partners.co.uk> > > >> > > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a > > >> complaint with the > > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of > > >> rights states > > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of > > >> hatred that > > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that > > >> constitutes > > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other > > >> legislation > > >> > in SA? > > >> > > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet governance > > >> issues can be > > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights > > >> lawyers and > > >> > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human > > >> rights and > > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of > > >> the only > > >> > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the > > >> current age > > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an > > >> inbuilt > > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between different > > >> rights and > > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to > > >> be done in > > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable > > >> of dealing > > >> > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of > > >> expression and > > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national > > >> human > > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > >> > > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many > > >> new campaigns > > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that > > >> they should > > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, > > >> existing human > > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all > > >> scales. > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > > >> > Any thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Lisa > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > > >> Association for Progressive Communications > > >> anriette at apc.org > > >> http://www.apc.org > > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out > > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds > > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is > > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and > > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes > > >> short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the > > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so > > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > > =============================================================== > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > Costa Rica > > > > What is an i-name? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 12 16:13:05 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:13:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] another letter -- MAG rotation, no news In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA15@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <02d401c8fcb7$d9aa4ad0$8b00a8c0@IAN> YES to this letter 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 13 August 2008 05:57 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: RE: [governance] another letter -- MAG rotation, no news > > I strongly support this letter. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > 14, August 2008 > > Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: > > > > We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news > > regarding the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group > > (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > > > > The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is > > extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and > > accommodation arrangements in such a short period of time. It will > > be even more difficult for new members, up to one third of the group, > > and particularly for those from developing countries and from civil > > society. > > > > We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused > > by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the > > IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and > > ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. > > > > Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal > > capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the > > MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Aug 12 16:15:38 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:15:38 +1000 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <02d501c8fcb8$32a279f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> YES to this (with or without Milton's suggested amendment) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 13 August 2008 05:56 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme paper. > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > Old language: > > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > begins promptly. > > Proposed change: > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > participants begins promptly. > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > programme paper. > > > > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > > > Just say yes or no. > > > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > > sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > > messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > > our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > > a central theme of the IGF process. > > > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > > this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > > main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > > Agenda, > > > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > > of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > > "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > and > > we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > > during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > > the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > > session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > > accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > > been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > > workshops? > > > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > influencing the main session debates.) > > > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > > etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > > We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > > smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > > developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > > IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > addressed. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 16:44:13 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:44:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <005c01c8fcbc$2ee8d080$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> I most certainly support Milton's amendment (below)... MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: August 12, 2008 12:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. Old language: > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > promptly. Proposed change: It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF participants begins promptly. Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme paper. > > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our > coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a > central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > "The role and mandate of the IGF" > and we > would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during > the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG > and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of > review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to include this > important topic in the taking stock and way forward session at the > Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main session > workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in > these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to > ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of > the working groups organizing the main session workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > influencing the main session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), > information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and > refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We > note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 17:08:21 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:08:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I support the letter (thanks Adam) and Milton's amendment Bill On 8/12/08 9:55 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > Old language: >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >> begins promptly. > > Proposed change: > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > participants begins promptly. > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >> programme paper. >> >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >> >> Just say yes or no. >> >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >> >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >> a central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >> Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >> >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >> and >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >> workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >> influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >> >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >> addressed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 17:18:10 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:18:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A1FE12.50604@wzb.eu> Needless to say, I support this letter including amendments as well. jeanette William Drake wrote: > I support the letter (thanks Adam) and Milton's amendment > > Bill > > > On 8/12/08 9:55 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence >> about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. >> >> Old language: >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >>> begins promptly. >> Proposed change: >> >> It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF >> participants begins promptly. >> >> Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by >> some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with >> the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>> programme paper. >>> >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>> >>> Just say yes or no. >>> >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>> >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>> >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >>> a central theme of the IGF process. >>> >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >>> Agenda, >>> >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >>> >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>> and >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>> >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>> workshops? >>> >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>> influencing the main session debates.) >>> >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >>> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>> >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>> addressed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 18:42:46 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:42:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] another letter -- MAG rotation, no news In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA15@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA15@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A211E6.3050909@rits.org.br> Ditto. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > I strongly support this letter. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> 14, August 2008 >> Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: >> >> We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news >> regarding the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group >> (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). >> >> The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is >> extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and >> accommodation arrangements in such a short period of time. It will >> be even more difficult for new members, up to one third of the group, >> and particularly for those from developing countries and from civil >> society. >> >> We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused >> by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the >> IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and >> ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. >> >> Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal >> capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the >> MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 18:42:04 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:42:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum participants? Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as well). frt rgds --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > Old language: >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >> begins promptly. > > Proposed change: > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > participants begins promptly. > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >> programme paper. >> >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >> >> Just say yes or no. >> >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >> >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >> a central theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >> Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >> >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >> and >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >> workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >> influencing the main session debates.) >> >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >> >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >> addressed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 20:52:17 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights References: <48a1af49.1a36720a.0c96.fffff14e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> Ginger and all, I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also many of our members have expressed the same, yet have great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of Rights" version with all amendments please? Ginger Paque wrote: > Yes! > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > Yes > > Bill > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Yes. > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > Please endorse. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > >> > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > >> agenda and program, and there was general > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > >> can be included in the official consultation > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > >> > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > >> > >> The letter can be seen at > >> > t > >> > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > r > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > >> , and the final text is also given below this > >> email > >> > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > >> > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > >> as a condition for endorsement. > >> > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > >> so. > >> > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > >> will not be registered. > >> > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > >> not, and take action accordingly. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > >> > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > >> > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > >> international law, the title of the main > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > >> will focus on security measures, without > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > >> overarching theme. > >> We recognize that development of the draft > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > >> security would be better addressed in the > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > >> could then bring these two strands together. > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > >> Kind regards, > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >> > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >> > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > >> protected by international law, and offers > >> significant new possibilities for development > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > >> example, some people in the coalition are > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > >> that all have access to the benefits and > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > >> these important issues can be given the > >> attention that they deserve. > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > >> IGF. > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 20:54:33 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:54:33 -0700 Subject: SV: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0278CEB6@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <48A0DF49.3F8A22B0@ix.netcom.com> Kicki and all, Yes, so are the Elderly and the less financially secure. Such charges or lack of access for whatever reason is not reasonably excusable. But of course the same is true for the ITU, unfortunately. Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Atanu Garai > > This is a very good question! I also wonder why ISO do not take into account all proposals coming from the disability movement asking for accessible standards so as all technology can be used by ALL persons without restrictions and complications! I have in my mind, so many examples on what could be done by standardisations so as special adjustments or adaptations would not be needed. There are also numerous documents written by the disability movement on "design for all" or Universal Design". > > It is because this ignorance persons with disabilities are still marginalised and excluded - but we do exist! > > Yours > Kicki > > Kicki Nordström > Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) > World Blind Union (WBU) > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: atanu garai [mailto:atanugarai.lists at gmail.com] > Skickat: den 8 augusti 2008 16:42 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: [governance] Why standards from ISO are not freely available? > > The International Organization for Standardization > (http://www.iso.org/) is a major standards development and maintenance body for the Internet, besides other organization. It has at least published 43 very important standards related to the Internet and information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). It is imperative that members of the public have access to those standards so that those standards can be applied by all and everybody concerned. On the other hand, these standards are developed by stakeholders across the globe in a cooperative way, most notably with active participation and contribution from the national standards organizations which are part of the national governments and funded by taxes. According to ISO, the organization has 157 national standards bodies and 60% of its income comes from membership fees (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm). Despite that one may wonder, why these standards are not available openly accessible for all internet users and making these standards available openly accessible can further augment development of standardised public systems. > > Atanu Garai > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Tue Aug 12 19:02:25 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:02:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080812072458.D674267833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080813010225.14029kxarcd4y54w@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> I fully support the Letter of th Dynamic Colation Bill-of-rights. Moreover, it the Conclusion by the Chair in Rio could be reminded as a request from the audience. -- Jacques Berleur Executive Secretary ASJEL c/o Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR URL: http://http.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Parminder a écrit : > Hi All > > > > A little while ago, on this list, we discussed about writing to the MAG > expressing our concern on dilution of 'rights' issues' in the IGF agenda and > program, and there was general support that such a letter should be sent. > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has prepared such a letter > that they plan to send to the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > can be included in the official consultation document for September MAG > consultation.. > > > > I put this letter for IGC's consideration and possible endorsement. > > > > The letter can be seen at > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_t > heme_of_the_igf , and the final text is also given below this email > > > > Two things are important to note in this respect. > > > > (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and is 'owned', by the dynamic > coalition, and at this stage, with only three days to go for the submission > deadline of the 15th, we can only accept to endorse it or not endorse it in > the shape that it is. It will not be possible to take in suggestions for any > changes to the text as a condition for endorsement. > > > > (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter prepared by the dynamic > coalition, and that this is not directly an IGC letter, also means that in > endorsing we need not be agreeing with each and every word of it. The > option, as I said, is to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do so. > > > > I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please only indicate whether you > do accept IGC endorsing the letter or not. A direct 'yes' or 'no' reply is > required. While substantiating arguments may be stated, conditional > acceptance will not be registered. > > > > Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 hours. At close of 48 hours > from now the co-coordinators will judge whether a rough consensus on > endorsing the letter is obtained or not, and take action accordingly. > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > > > > > Rights as core theme of the IGF > > > Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > > > The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests > that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for > the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the "openness" theme, > rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that > this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year's > IGF in Hyderabad. > > We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on > "openness" and "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In > particular, "openness and privacy" are only mentioned as a half of a > sub-item of the general "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the > opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights > and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main > security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are > concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without > adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of > the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, > culture, privacy and development. > > Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other > coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned with the limited > consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat > and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to > add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work > towards incorporating 'Rights and the Internet' into the IGF Cairo agenda as > an overarching theme. > > We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel > that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on > the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > session "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness" to focus on rights. The > issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme > session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give > rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main > theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" to, "Balancing Security and > Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > > As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on > 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape > such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to > merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the > Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive > adequate attention at the IGF. > > We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > > Kind regards, > The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > > About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > > The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is acting as an umbrella > coalition for all individuals and groups who are concerned with rights > issues and internet governance. The internet has unleashed a raft of > opportunities to protect and expand our human rights as protected by > international law, and offers significant new possibilities for development > and empowerment. However, the internet also presents us with serious > challenges, including how to balance the social goods that stem from the > openness of the internet with the need for security, and how to ensure that > the benefits that the internet brings are shared by all. The Dynamic > Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights is working to address these issues, > with a view to ensuring that human rights are integral to internet > governance processes and decisions. > > Our membership is diverse in terms of stakeholders, geography and view > points. For example, some people in the coalition are concerned with > ensuring that our rights our protected when we use the internet, some are > working to ensure that rights underpin the norms that guide internet > governance, and others are seeking to establish rights to the internet so > that all have access to the benefits and opportunities it supports. Yet all > of our members are keen to see a greater focus on rights in the main agenda > of the IGF so that these important issues can be given the attention that > they deserve. > > The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda > item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide > spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious > people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's > workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome > with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the > governments of Italy and Brazil. We also note that organizations such as the > Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications have > made similar requests for a stronger focus on rights at the IGF. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 21:20:30 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:20:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <48A0E55D.EF08189E@ix.netcom.com> Carlos and all, Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? Carlos Afonso wrote: > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > participants? > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > well). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > Old language: > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > >> begins promptly. > > > > Proposed change: > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > > participants begins promptly. > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > >> programme paper. > >> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >> > >> Just say yes or no. > >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > >> Agenda, > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > >> > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > >> and > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > >> workshops? > >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > >> influencing the main session debates.) > >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > >> addressed. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 19:29:05 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:29:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> References: <48a1af49.1a36720a.0c96.fffff14e@mx.google.com> <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0808121629r43c1477ag3b8c2c84244766d5@mail.gmail.com> hi jeffrey - here you go http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf- max On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ginger and all, > > I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to > find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also > many of our members have expressed the same, yet have > great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of > Rights" version with all amendments please? > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Yes! > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > > > Yes > > > > Bill > > > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > > > Please endorse. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > > >> > > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > > >> agenda and program, and there was general > > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > > >> can be included in the official consultation > > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > > >> > > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > > >> > > >> The letter can be seen at > > >> > > < > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_ > > t > > >> > > heme_of_the_igf> > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > > r > > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > > >> , and the final text is also given below this > > >> email > > >> > > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > > >> > > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > > >> as a condition for endorsement. > > >> > > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > > >> so. > > >> > > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > > >> will not be registered. > > >> > > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > > >> not, and take action accordingly. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > > >> > > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > > >> > > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > > >> international law, the title of the main > > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > > >> will focus on security measures, without > > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > > >> overarching theme. > > >> We recognize that development of the draft > > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > > >> security would be better addressed in the > > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > > >> could then bring these two strands together. > > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > > >> Kind regards, > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > > >> protected by international law, and offers > > >> significant new possibilities for development > > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > > >> example, some people in the coalition are > > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > > >> that all have access to the benefits and > > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > > >> these important issues can be given the > > >> attention that they deserve. > > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > > >> IGF. > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 21:25:36 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:25:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> Ginger and all, Sorry none of the links your provided render the actual document of the "Bill of Rights" to which the letter is associated. Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeffrey and all, > > As I understand it, the text of the letter we are discussing is the one at > the bottom of this email. The actual Bill of Rights is a work in progress, > with information available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/; its > documents available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php and > its Progress Report at http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php being > the latest (June 30th) that I know of. > > Perhaps Max can fill in more information for this discussion. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Enviado el: Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008 08:22 p.m. > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > Ginger and all, > > I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to > find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also > many of our members have expressed the same, yet have > great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of > Rights" version with all amendments please? > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Yes! > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > > > Yes > > > > Bill > > > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > > > Please endorse. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > > >> > > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > > >> agenda and program, and there was general > > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > > >> can be included in the official consultation > > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > > >> > > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > > >> > > >> The letter can be seen at > > >> > > > > t > > >> > > > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > > r > > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > > >> , and the final text is also given below this > > >> email > > >> > > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > > >> > > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > > >> as a condition for endorsement. > > >> > > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > > >> so. > > >> > > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > > >> will not be registered. > > >> > > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > > >> not, and take action accordingly. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > > >> > > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > > >> > > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > > >> international law, the title of the main > > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > > >> will focus on security measures, without > > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > > >> overarching theme. > > >> We recognize that development of the draft > > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > > >> security would be better addressed in the > > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > > >> could then bring these two strands together. > > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > > >> Kind regards, > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > > >> protected by international law, and offers > > >> significant new possibilities for development > > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > > >> example, some people in the coalition are > > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > > >> that all have access to the benefits and > > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > > >> these important issues can be given the > > >> attention that they deserve. > > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > > >> IGF. > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 19:11:45 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:41:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> Jeffrey and all, As I understand it, the text of the letter we are discussing is the one at the bottom of this email. The actual Bill of Rights is a work in progress, with information available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/; its documents available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php and its Progress Report at http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php being the latest (June 30th) that I know of. Perhaps Max can fill in more information for this discussion. -----Mensaje original----- De: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Enviado el: Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008 08:22 p.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights Ginger and all, I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also many of our members have expressed the same, yet have great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of Rights" version with all amendments please? Ginger Paque wrote: > Yes! > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > Yes > > Bill > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Yes. > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > Please endorse. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > >> > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > >> agenda and program, and there was general > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > >> can be included in the official consultation > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > >> > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > >> > >> The letter can be seen at > >> > t > >> > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > r > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > >> , and the final text is also given below this > >> email > >> > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > >> > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > >> as a condition for endorsement. > >> > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > >> so. > >> > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > >> will not be registered. > >> > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > >> not, and take action accordingly. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > >> > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > >> > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > >> international law, the title of the main > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > >> will focus on security measures, without > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > >> overarching theme. > >> We recognize that development of the draft > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > >> security would be better addressed in the > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > >> could then bring these two strands together. > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > >> Kind regards, > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >> > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > >> > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > >> protected by international law, and offers > >> significant new possibilities for development > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > >> example, some people in the coalition are > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > >> that all have access to the benefits and > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > >> these important issues can be given the > >> attention that they deserve. > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > >> IGF. > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 19:56:30 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:56:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> <48A0E55D.EF08189E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F62@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well done. The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert report. So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme Carlos and all, Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? Carlos Afonso wrote: > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > participants? > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > well). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > Old language: > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > >> begins promptly. > > > > Proposed change: > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > > participants begins promptly. > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > >> programme paper. > >> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >> > >> Just say yes or no. > >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > >> Agenda, > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > >> > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > >> and > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > >> workshops? > >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > >> influencing the main session debates.) > >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > >> addressed. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6915 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 23:06:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:06:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> <48A0E55D.EF08189E@ix.netcom.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F62@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A0FE50.B6C69F98@ix.netcom.com> Lee and all, Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my questions. None the less it would be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism. I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being selected from the UN. They have no "real world" experts, IMO. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well done. > > The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert report. > > So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > > Lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > > Carlos and all, > > Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > > participants? > > > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > > well). > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > > > Old language: > > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > >> begins promptly. > > > > > > Proposed change: > > > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > > > participants begins promptly. > > > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > ------------------------------ > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > >> programme paper. > > >> > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > >> > > >> Just say yes or no. > > >> > > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > >> > > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > >> > > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > > >> > > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > > >> Agenda, > > >> > > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > >> > > >> > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > >> and > > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > >> > > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > > >> workshops? > > >> > > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > >> influencing the main session debates.) > > >> > > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > >> > > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > >> addressed. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 23:11:40 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:11:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights References: <48a1af49.1a36720a.0c96.fffff14e@mx.google.com> <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> <4d976d8e0808121629r43c1477ag3b8c2c84244766d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A0FF6C.E5D14082@ix.netcom.com> Max and all, Hummm? Well still, I don't see any specified "Rights" articulated in this link, just some very broad nebulus loosly collected thoughts. So this surely can't be a "Bill of Rights" in any formal form? Is there such a document yet? Max Senges wrote: > hi jeffrey - here you go > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > - max > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Jeffrey A. > Williams wrote: > > Ginger and all, > > I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able > to > find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also > > many of our members have expressed the same, yet have > great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of > > Rights" version with all amendments please? > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Yes! > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: William Drake > [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of > 'rights > > > > Yes > > > > Bill > > > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > > > Please endorse. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > > >> > > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > > >> agenda and program, and there was general > > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > > >> can be included in the official consultation > > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > > >> > > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible > endorsement. > > >> > > >> The letter can be seen at > > >> > > > > > t > > >> > > > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > > > r > > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > > >> , and the final text is also given below this > > >> email > > >> > > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > > >> > > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > > >> as a condition for endorsement. > > >> > > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > > >> so. > > >> > > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > > >> will not be registered. > > >> > > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > > >> not, and take action accordingly. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > > >> > > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory > Group, > > >> > > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > > >> international law, the title of the main > > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > > >> will focus on security measures, without > > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > > >> overarching theme. > > >> We recognize that development of the draft > > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > > >> security would be better addressed in the > > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > > >> could then bring these two strands together. > > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your > response. > > >> Kind regards, > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > > >> protected by international law, and offers > > >> significant new possibilities for development > > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > > >> example, some people in the coalition are > > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > > >> that all have access to the benefits and > > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > > >> these important issues can be given the > > >> attention that they deserve. > > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > > >> IGF. > > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > ===== > ========================================================= > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the > strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done > better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; > whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives > valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the > great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy > cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid > souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 11 23:28:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:28:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> Jaco and all, My remarks, response and thoughts interspersed below Jaco's. Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Dear Jeffrey, please read my answer to your email below.... > > > > > Well there are a few other courts to go through before one > even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the > supreme > Court in the US. > > Agree. > The bottom line is to have this new right added as a new fundamental > right in the Constitution. This will have implications not just for > other Courts, but also for many Government offices, including the > FCC. > > Ok, but you realize that in the US anyway, the Constitution has > not been amended in quite some time. Adding additional rights > as they apply to the US "Bill of Rights" a US founding document, > might be a better way to go. Although I don't believe that the > US "Bill of Rights" has ever been amended... So to do so is a very > steep hill to climb and will likely take years if not decades. > > > > > > > > > > That's not enforcement in any event. That's > adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher > course. > > I am always ready to learn more! ;-) > > Same here. > > > > > > Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme > Court, > but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually > been heard > in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these > instances > either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient > to be > heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. > > Agree. > > > > So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly > provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend > > such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or > Rights? > > Can you please be kind to write this question again?. I want to be > sure that I understand the question before answering it. > > Does the Internet "Bill of Rights" being proposed seek to > supplement/amend any other countries equivelent? > > > > > > > Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other > countries? > > Ideally, every country should include this new right in the > Constitution. In Costa Rica, he Congress is studying to include this > new fundamental right in the Constitution. In Germany, one of the > countries more advanced in the world in legal developments, the > Constitutional Court (Supreme Court) already added this new > fundamental right, a few months ago. > > Well Costa Rica isn't exactly a first world country with a stable > political atmosphere. Germany has gone a long ways in expanding > users Internet rights and protections, as well has regressed on the > norm for same. So 2 countries does not a global consensus make, > but it's a tiny start! >:) > > > Whom would enforce those? > > Each country has its own systems to enforce human/fundamental rights. > It goes in many levels, as you wrote before (several types of Courts, > and even Government). > > Yes I am fully aware as I have lived in three countries in my > lifetime > so far. Most have very little enforcment of Civil rights of any sort > that is substancial. Those that do, the individual cost is > prohibitive > to the average user/stakeholder to get enforced. > > > > > > The newly formed civil rights division > of the International House of Justice perhaps? > > Of course they can help, but most of the work will be in the National > Courts. > > Agreed. > > > > > How would such > new rights be so recognized by such an august body without > nearly > every country's legal structure amended appropriately? > > Agree. First the country legal structure has to change. > > Ok. I hope you realize I doubt that I will live longe enough > before enough countries achieve this very lofty goal. Very steep > hill here. Just being realistic... > > > > > > > And than > yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in > multi-jurisdictional > cases? > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Well I guess than we can not count on Russia or China, and not > likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria. > > > > > > How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Ok, so again same as just above, I guess than we can not count > on Russia or China, and not likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria, > at least not in my life time. > > And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? > Interpol > perhaps? < shrug > > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Ok so very little enforcment in most countries, no third world > countries, and no purely nationalistic countries. And very few > middle income to lower income users/stakeholders can > reasonably expect in the near term, any significant enforcment. > > > > > > > Thank you for your time Jeffrey!, > > Welcome! And thank you for your frank and prompt responses... > > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme > Court. > > > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of > Rights. What > > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, > whom would > > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US > Congress, > > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Lisa, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive > and I support. > > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa > Rica. > > >> > > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality > fundamental right is > > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE > initiative. Of > > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > > >> > > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear > and good virtual > > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will > be much easier > > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > >> > > >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, > "internet right", > > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional > Court?. > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Jaco > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > > >> Horner wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Max and all > > >> > > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm > equally > > >> interested in your work and in exploring > potentials for > > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research > ideas' and > > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights > wiki? > > >> > > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email > – those > > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into > skim-read > > >> mode now! > > >> > > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing > Freedom > > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned > before that > > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in > different > > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if > adhered to, > > >> would shape a global communications environment > that would > > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' > communications > > >> environment. They address issues spanning > infrastructure, > > >> code and content. The latest draft of the > principles is > > >> available and open for comment at > > >> > > >> > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > >> > > >> The principles and values that they express are > purposefully > > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific > contexts. > > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching > framework for > > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different > scales. For > > >> example, our project partners are currently > working to > > >> elaborate what they might mean in different > country > > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the > foundations for > > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces > where > > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share > certain > > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy > accordingly. > > >> > > >> We have been working to base all of our work so > far in > > >> international human rights standards, in > particular freedom > > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right > to > > >> participation in government. We've taken an > expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but > not all) > > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the > world > > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of > freedom of > > >> expression, including the notion that governments > are > > >> responsible for putting the necessary > > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right > to be > > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > believe that we > > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the > right to > > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments > and > > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are > already > > >> contained within the human rights system. In my > opinion, > > >> our energy should be focused on further developing > and > > >> upholding what we have already, for example, > further > > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of > expression in > > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette > and Milton > > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > > >> understanding about what international rights > standards and > > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > > >> > > >> The research that I referred to before is intended > to > > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an > expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression is being > supported in > > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and > case law, > > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to > be done. > > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a > starting > > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > > >> international human rights system. In this way, > if the > > >> framework was used as a basis for policy > discussion, human > > >> rights standards would effectively be > 'mainstreamed' within > > >> the discussions. > > >> > > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that > these > > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a > positive > > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared > norms and > > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the > internet' > > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are > the most > > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards > in the > > >> world, which (in reference to earlier > conversations) is why > > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build > on them, > > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > >> > > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to > hear > > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and > am keen to > > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further > research on > > >> any of these issues. > > >> > > >> Many thanks, > > >> > > >> Lisa > > >> > > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On > Behalf Of > > >> Max Senges > > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette > Esterhuysen; > > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > >> dear lisa and all > > >> > > >> Lisa wrote: > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's > Center > > >> for Internet and Society has offered to > collaborate by > > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame > research > > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be > taken up in > > >> the fall. > > >> > > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware > of all the > > >> other research undertaken to better understand a > Rights > > >> based approach to IG. > > >> > > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global > Partners > > >> research? > > >> > > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is > very much > > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we > complement, > > >> share and avoid duplication > > >> > > >> best > > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette > Esterhuysen > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hallo all > > >> > > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights > Commission > > >> is the appropriate > > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal > with hate > > >> speech issues quite often. > > >> > > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent > work. > > >> Here is their URL > > >> > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > > >> > > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before > parlaiment a > > >> few times here in South > > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I > remember > > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > > >> > > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint > to the HRC > > >> (human rights > > >> commission) would the way to start if the > intension is to > > >> create public awareness of > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... > which is > > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > > >> would just ignore it. > > >> > > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the > relationship > > >> between rights and internet > > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground > since > > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights > rhetoric and to > > >> work out what the > > >> implementable rights-based public policy > principles are that > > >> we can work with on > > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for > example > > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > > >> this approach in our access work. > > >> > > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights > movement has > > >> not engaged this terrain > > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > > >> > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> > > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 > +0100 > > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > > >> > > >> To: > , > > >> "Rui Correia" > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking > down a site > > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > > >> Send reply to: > governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > > >> Horner" > >> partners.co.uk> > > >> > > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth > filing a > > >> complaint with the > > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA > bill of > > >> rights states > > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to > "advocacy of > > >> hatred that > > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, > and that > > >> constitutes > > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by > any other > > >> legislation > > >> > in SA? > > >> > > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet > governance > > >> issues can be > > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human > rights > > >> lawyers and > > >> > institutions are usually absent from the > debate. Human > > >> rights and > > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are > arguably one of > > >> the only > > >> > global governance institutions that is > 'thickening' in the > > >> current age > > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches > also have an > > >> inbuilt > > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between > different > > >> rights and > > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot > of work to > > >> be done in > > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that > they're capable > > >> of dealing > > >> > with new issues, including those relating to > freedom of > > >> expression and > > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly > with national > > >> human > > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that > process? > > >> > > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment > that many > > >> new campaigns > > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I > think that > > >> they should > > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm > understanding of, > > >> existing human > > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal > and at all > > >> scales. > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > > >> > Any thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Lisa > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > > >> Association for Progressive Communications > > >> anriette at apc.org > > >> http://www.apc.org > > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who > points out > > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of > deeds > > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the > man who is > > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and > > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs > and comes > > >> short again and again; who knows the great > enthusiasms, the > > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy > cause; ... so > > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and > timid > > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > > >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not > with what is > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L > multiplied by > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > > > > =============================================================== > > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > Costa Rica > > > > What is an i-name? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > ===== > ========================================================= > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 21:39:09 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:39:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> <48A0E55D.EF08189E@ix.netcom.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F62@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <48A0FE50.B6C69F98@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F64@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Jeff, The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, since 'experts' cannot apply for a gig for which there has been no call, your question on who exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. And I did tell you my view you on the relative weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective IGF reviews by governments. But that is just my opinion. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme Lee and all, Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my questions. None the less it would be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism. I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being selected from the UN. They have no "real world" experts, IMO. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well done. > > The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert report. > > So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > > Lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > > Carlos and all, > > Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > > participants? > > > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > > well). > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > > > Old language: > > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > >> begins promptly. > > > > > > Proposed change: > > > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > > > participants begins promptly. > > > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > ------------------------------ > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > >> programme paper. > > >> > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > >> > > >> Just say yes or no. > > >> > > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > >> > > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > >> > > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > > >> > > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > > >> Agenda, > > >> > > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > >> > > >> > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > >> and > > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > >> > > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > > >> workshops? > > >> > > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > >> influencing the main session debates.) > > >> > > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > >> > > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > >> addressed. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Aug 12 22:11:06 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] DNSSEC and War Message-ID: Russian Cyber Attacks Shut Down Georgian Websites By Stefanie Hoffman, ChannelWeb 7:22 PM EDT Tue. Aug. 12, 2008 Art. Ref.: http://www.crn.com/security/210003057 Following just six days after the initiation of the Georgia-Russian conflict, the Georgian Internet became the target of a coordinated cyber attack, which compromised several government Websites with defacement and Denial of Service attacks, crippling the nation's ability to disseminate information. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's site was defaced, integrating his image with those of Hitler. The sabotage was followed by a DDoS attack that left the presidential site inaccessible. Denial of service attacks are conducted when a coordinated network of computers sends multiple requests to a given server or computer at exactly the same time, which subsequently shuts down the targeted computer under the barrage of incoming requests. Meanwhile, Georgian news sites and other popular information forums were also blocked during the attack. "As more government services move toward the Internet, you end up with more exposure to these types of attack, whether it was an organization and executed by government or criminal elements acting at somebody's direction," said Kevin Newmeyer, worldwide principal for strategic security and counter terrorism for security company Unisys (NYSE:UIS). "It's hard to prove it was a government-directed operation." The attacks ultimately prompted the Georgian governmental sites to switch to U.S. based hosts, while Georgia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs moved to a blogspot account. The exact sources of the attacks are yet unknown. Experts say that some ISPs appear to be sourced in Russia, and some speculate that the Russian government had used its resources to fund the attack, which was launched the day before Russia drove tanks into South Ossetia. Other unconfirmed reports suggest that members of the cybercrime organization Russian Business Network are responsible for the coordinated sabotage of the Georgian Websites. "It looks like it was coming from Russia, or is it a co-opted server that wasn't properly patched, with people taking over the computer and doing things with it?" said Newmeyer. "With the Russian Business Network, you can rent out a server or a botnet for a number of hours. You pay your cyber gold and these transactions happen offshore. That's one of the challenges that governments face." Other experts, such as Paul Ferguson, advanced threats researchers for Trend Micro, maintained that the actual RBN ISP has long been shut down, disbanding into less obvious activity spread all over the globe. The first of the coordinated cyber attacks against Georgia was detected in July, weeks before Russia launched its military intervention. Experts say that attacks launched in tandem with military conflict will likely increase as more global infrastructure is controlled by the Internet. While experts hesitate to call the Georgia attack an act of cyber terrorism, most agree that it was part of a strategic campaign to eliminate Georgia's ability to disseminate information. "It's a brute force attack, one that goes all the way back to the Mafiaboy attacks of 2000," said David Perry, global director of education for Trend Micro. "This is not a verifiable cyber war, but it is clearly a step in that direction." The attacks recall a similar cyber attack in Estonia in April of 2007, when government, parliament, and newspaper sites, as well as numerous online banking operations were shut down after a conflict that resulted in the removal of several Russian World War II monuments. However, experts contend that the recent information attack on Georgian Websites was more coordinated, professional and sophisticated in nature than last year's attack on Estonia infrastructure. "The Estonia incident was more what I would call hactivism, more of an attack by impassioned amateurs," said Ferguson. "This is a professional attack, and it is vastly more serious." -- Of what value is it, knowing who started the War? The question is - Can DNSSEC prevent Wars? Re: DNSSEC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSSEC --- End -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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 02:11:27 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:11:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA14@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A211BC.9030801@rits.org.br> <48A0E55D.EF08189E@ix.netcom.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F62@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <48A0FE50.B6C69F98@ix.netcom.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F64@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A1298F.1FA460E5@ix.netcom.com> Lee and all, Ahhh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. >:) My concern was, and may still be is that one persons "Expert" is anothers idialog, as it were. But in theroy I am very supportive of a Internet "Bill of Rights", as long as those rights do reasonably and broadly share the principals that are unique to the use of the Internet, but also share democratic principals that for instance, the US "Bill of Rights" embodies. And they must be clearly diliniated so that interpratation and application is minimalized. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Jeff, > > The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, since 'experts' cannot > apply for a gig for which there has been no call, your question on who > exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. And I did tell you my > view you on the relative weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective > IGF reviews by governments. But that is just my opinion. > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > Lee and all, > > Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my questions. > None the less it would > be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for > purposes of non-nepotism. > I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being > selected from the UN. They > have no "real world" experts, IMO. > > Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely > that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert > selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, > whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does > go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert > report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well > done. > > > > The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton > suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of > us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving > also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert > report. > > > > So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > > > > Lee > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > > > Carlos and all, > > > > Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > > and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > > such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > > > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > > > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the > Forum > > > participants? > > > > > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > > > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, > it > > > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this > "expert" > > > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation > etc as > > > well). > > > > > > frt rgds > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the > sentence > > > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > > > > > Old language: > > > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > > >> begins promptly. > > > > > > > > Proposed change: > > > > > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with > IGF > > > > participants begins promptly. > > > > > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and > evaluation" by > > > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal > consultation" with > > > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the > Forum? > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > > >> programme paper. > > > >> > > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > > >> > > > >> Just say yes or no. > > > >> > > > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to > get > > > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos > and > > > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > > >> > > > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they > have > > > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or > not. > > > >> > > > >> Adam > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > > >> > > > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully > supports the > > > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as > core > > > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must > remain > > > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > > > >> > > > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest > that > > > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the > other > > > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the > Tunis > > > >> Agenda, > > > >> > > > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the > desirability > > > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with > Forum > > > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a > workshop > > > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > > >> > and > > > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support > discussion > > > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work > with > > > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way > forward > > > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > > >> > > > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > > > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some > workshops > > > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts > have > > > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main > session > > > >> workshops? > > > >> > > > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would > like > > > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all > stakeholders > > > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working > groups > > > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > > >> influencing the main session debates.) > > > >> > > > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > > > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, > breaks > > > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, > food > > > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > > >> > > > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > > > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of > this. > > > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to > manage a > > > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating > from > > > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by > the > > > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > > >> addressed. > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> > > > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders > strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Name: winmail.dat > > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > > Encoding: base64 > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 00:25:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:55:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F64@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All In my view, an expert evaluation does have a role. However its relationship with, and political subordination to, the public consultation process should be strongly clear. It exists not to give a definitive view of the IGF, which assessment is political and belongs to the people, stakeholders, constituent groups etc.. At the same time, the basis of choosing the experts should be clear and transparent, and should meet the purpose of the evaluation with regard to the context, role and mandate of the IGF. Both the neutrality and the appropriateness to 'context, role and mandate' (that derives form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in full detail. I am also very wary, and somewhat suspicious, of pro bono evaluations offered by any expert or agency. And I have a feeling that there is a strong possibility that this route may be attempted in this case. Choice of expert should be based on rational criteria as described above, and not on the basis of any pro bono offer. I think this too should be stated . Taking the views expressed so far on this together, and adding from the above, I propose the following part to replace the stated part of our input. As at present this part read - "it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly." Suggested amended text (of some length, because the evaluation is going to be one of the important political activity in the next few months/ year) "It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. The review should be done through wide public consultations, including with IGF participants. This should be a formal process, which is very open and transparent. If it is felt required to do an outside expert assessment to help this review process, complete due diligence should be exercised. The process of selection of the expert should be based on rational criteria connected to the context, role and mandate of the IGF as per the WSIS. The rationale behind such selection should be made public. The terms of reference should be open and based on appropriate consultations. The role of the expert input as a mean to assist the review process anchored in public consultations, and its subordination to it, should be made clear. Experts should not be chosen just because their services are available pro bono. " I still have about 14 hours or so to take in comments. If I find this suggested amendment is found controversial, I will go back to the original, and seek IGC's views on this issue separately. Thanks. Parminder _____ From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme Jeff, The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, since 'experts' cannot apply for a gig for which there has been no call, your question on who exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. And I did tell you my view you on the relative weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective IGF reviews by governments. But that is just my opinion. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme Lee and all, Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my questions. None the less it would be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism. I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being selected from the UN. They have no "real world" experts, IMO. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well done. > > The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert report. > > So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > > Lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > > Carlos and all, > > Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > > participants? > > > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > > well). > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > > > Old language: > > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > >> begins promptly. > > > > > > Proposed change: > > > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > > > participants begins promptly. > > > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > ------------------------------ > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > >> programme paper. > > >> > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > >> > > >> Just say yes or no. > > >> > > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > >> > > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > >> > > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > > >> > > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > > >> Agenda, > > >> > > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > >> > > >> > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > >> and > > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > >> > > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > > >> workshops? > > >> > > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > >> influencing the main session debates.) > > >> > > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > >> > > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > >> addressed. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 13 00:33:37 2008 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ISO standards Message-ID: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dear Kicki, Anita, all The ISO has a very complex working method. At the global level, the Geneva-based office serves as the Secretariat of the National Bodies. At the National Body level, the Standards Organisation claims to be serving as a sort of Secretariat on issues raised by the national Stakeholders. In the wake of the debate around OOXML, I joined the National Standards Board of my base country and have been there for one year now. Here is one information; only national boards can effect change within the ISO. And for now, it does not seem to be the case. I think the basic issue here is the historical way in ISO has worked. Since its creation, it has been concerned with standards of products, which, in many cases have been tangible. The IEC- International Electrotechnical Committee is actually the branch of ISO that is dealing with digital issues. The internal mechanism of the ISO itself, committees, expert groups etc is a long and boring one and very few people are actually committed to it. Then there is the 'standing' of National Bodies within the ISO itself. Suffice it to say that proposals that come to ISO goes to technical committees before showing up on the desks of the national boards. The process from Proposal to a Standard may take years. For the lack of human resources or whatever other reason, National Bodies only belong to committees where they have a vested interest. They may be 'O' or 'P' members. Observing members' do not really weigh in much but Participating members do. But to be a P member, you will need a mirror committee at your national level. Given that time spent on National Standards Boards are not paid, it is almost suicidal to keep up with the volume of work that is required. Until the OOXML issue, there were only 2 African countries that were P members in the Sub Committee of the Technical Committee that deals with Document formats. These were Kenya and South Africa. A few others where members but only as Observers. It meant that in a continent of 53 countries, only 2 had an IT mirror committee in their National Standards Boards! We picked up a campaign sometimes after the 3rd Conference on FOSS the Digital Commons organised by the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA). It was basically to senstise on the need for Open standards.. but the action framework was not even there! So far, Nigeria and Ghana are the ones appointing an IT officer at teh National Standards body. Otherwise, we will still remain with issues around petrol, agricultural and industrial goods. The advocacy on mainstreaming the issues raised by physically changed persons within ISO, therefore, is a work that will need to be done and well done, beginning from the national standards board and moving up to the ISO itself. But recently, the working methods of the ISO have come under great scrutiny and I believe that with time, the methods will be bound to change. But for now, the ISO only deals with standards submitters, experts groups, working groups, technical committees and National Bodies! ----- Original Message ---- From: "governance-request at lists.cpsr.org" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:56:53 AM Subject: governance Digest Tue, 12 Aug 2008 (3/3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 13 02:00:06 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:00:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Milton: I agree some change is necessary, but have problems with both your proposals. I suggest trying to stick as closely as possible to the text Parminder sent yesterday making a slight change such as: "it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders" I think you are opening up a simple comment in ways that need too much discussion. Parminder: you are getting into too much detail. The impact of the statement we need to make "begin the review, we are offering to help" is being lost. Milton: "Formal consultation with the IGF" may be interpreted in ways we like less, leading perhaps to focus more on discussion only within the Forum as it is convened on an annual basis and any post CSTD follow-up (i.e. with govt as lead entities.) One response on the MAG list to the proposal to begin an outside evaluation was: "With due respect to [name deleted] and IGF Secretariat, I am asking myself whether proposed way of action corresponds to the WSIS decision which reads as follows: 76.We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. In other words, IGF Chair Nitin Desai and the Secretariat is asked to assess the usefulness of continuation of the IGF in the formal way -- session of the forth or fifth IGF meeting and advise UN SG on the course of further action. [stuff deleted] In other words, I am not supporting a conduct of outside evaluation, but suggest returning to the question of the possible form of the formal consultation with Forum participants after India meeting in May 2009." Note, this was in response to whether or not a draft terms of reference for the evaluation (a "food for thought" document) should be put out for public comment. Just go back to a simple reformulation of the text people have been reading please. Let's use: "it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders" Thanks, Adam At 9:55 AM +0530 8/13/08, Parminder wrote: >Hi All > > >In my view, an expert evaluation does have a >role. However its relationship with, and >political subordination to, the public >consultation process should be strongly clear. >It exists not to give a definitive view of the >IGF, which assessment is political and belongs >to the people, stakeholders, constituent groups >etcŠ. > >At the same time, the basis of choosing the >experts should be clear and transparent, and >should meet the purpose of the evaluation with >regard to the context, role and mandate of the >IGF. Both the neutrality and the appropriateness >to Œcontext, role and mandate¹ (that derives >form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in >full detail. > >I am also very wary, and somewhat suspicious, of >pro bono evaluations offered by any expert or >agency. And I have a feeling that there is a >strong possibility that this route may be >attempted in this case. Choice of expert should >be based on rational criteria as described >above, and not on the basis of any pro bono >offer. I think this too should be stated . > >Taking the views expressed so far on this >together, and adding from the above, I propose >the following part to replace the stated part of >our input. > >As at present this part read ­ ³it is important >that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins >promptly.² > >Suggested amended text (of some length, because >the evaluation is going to be one of the >important political activity in the next few >months/ year) > >³It is important that a review and evaluation of >the IGF begins promptly. The review should be >done through wide public consultations, >including with IGF participants. This should be >a formal process, which is very open and >transparent. If it is felt required to do an >outside expert assessment to help this review >process, complete due diligence should be >exercised. The process of selection of the >expert should be based on rational criteria >connected to the context, role and mandate of >the IGF as per the WSIS. The rationale behind >such selection should be made public. The terms >of reference should be open and based on >appropriate consultations. The role of the >expert input as a mean to assist the review >process anchored in public consultations, and >its subordination to it, should be made clear. >Experts should not be chosen just because their >services are available pro bono. ² > > >I still have about 14 hours or so to take in >comments. If I find this suggested amendment is >found controversial, I will go back to the >original, and seek IGC¹s views on this issue >separately. > >Thanks. > >Parminder > > > > >From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:09 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > >Jeff, > >The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, >since 'experts' cannot apply for a gig for which >there has been no call, your question on who >exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. >And I did tell you my view you on the relative >weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective IGF >reviews by governments. But that is just my >opinion. > >Lee > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams >[mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > >Lee and all, > > Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't >answer my questions. None the less it would >be good to have an outside review if for no >other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism. >I do of course have serious reservations if the >"Expert" being selected from the UN. They >have no "real world" experts, IMO. > >Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think Carlos is just being practical, since >>it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' >>group will be brought in, with the expert >>selected by UN staffers from amongst the >>applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes >>out requesting bids. Presuming a public call >>does go out. For governments and other sources >>of funding, the expert report might be seen as >>definitive, presuming it is reasonably well >>done. >> >> The IGF engaging in self-reflection and >>self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also >>needed, and is part of the idea for the >>workshop some of us CSers are working on >>getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also >>other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back >>into the expert report. >> >> So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. >> >> Lee >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams >>[mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme >> >> Carlos and all, >> >> Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" >> and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would >> such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? >> >> Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an >> > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum >> > participants? >> > >> > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be >> > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it >> > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" >> > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as >> > well). >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence >> > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. >> > > >> > > Old language: >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >> > >> begins promptly. >> > > >> > > Proposed change: >> > > >> > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF >> > > participants begins promptly. >> > > >> > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by >> > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with >> > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? >> > > >> > > Milton Mueller >> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> > > ------------------------------ >> > > Internet Governance Project: >> > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > >> > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >> > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >> > >> programme paper. >> > >> >> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >> > >> >> > >> Just say yes or no. >> > >> >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >> > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >> > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >> > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >> > >> >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >> > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >> > >> >> > >> Adam >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >> > >> >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >> > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >> > >> a central theme of the IGF process. >> > >> >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >> > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >> > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >> > >> Agenda, >> > >> >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >> > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >> > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >> > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >> > >> >><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> >>and >> > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >> > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >> > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >> > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >> > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >> > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >> > >> >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >> > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >> > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >> > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >> > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >> > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >> > >> workshops? >> > >> >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >> > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >> > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >> > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >> > >> influencing the main session debates.) >> > >> >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >> > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >> > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >> > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >> > >> >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >> > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >> > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >> > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >> > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >> > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >> > >> addressed. >> > >> >> > >> Thank you, >> > >> >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: >> > >>      >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > > >> > > For all list information and functions, see: >> > >      >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >      >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> Abraham Lincoln >> >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> =============================================================== >> Updated 1/26/04 >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Name: winmail.dat >> winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef >> Encoding: base64 > >Regards, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >     >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Aug 13 03:59:12 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:59:12 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Nnenna, Thanks a lot, I know partly the situation as you described it, but you also have given new information to me, thank you! Right now the World Blind Union have proposed that credit cards should be standardised in a way that blind people could differ the sides of them and then be able to independent use them in ATM-machines etc. The marking of all keyboards with digits,, no 5 should be marked with a dot, due to ISO standards, so as blind persons easily can use the keyboard. Those are just small examples, but much more could be done by ISO, if they were aware of our daily problems that always must be adjusted due to lack of standards. This is both expensive and time consuming. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: Nnenna [mailto:nne75 at yahoo.com] Skickat: den 13 augusti 2008 06:34 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Kopia: Board of Directors Osi Ämne: [governance] ISO standards Dear Kicki, Anita, all The ISO has a very complex working method. At the global level, the Geneva-based office serves as the Secretariat of the National Bodies. At the National Body level, the Standards Organisation claims to be serving as a sort of Secretariat on issues raised by the national Stakeholders. In the wake of the debate around OOXML, I joined the National Standards Board of my base country and have been there for one year now. Here is one information; only national boards can effect change within the ISO. And for now, it does not seem to be the case. I think the basic issue here is the historical way in ISO has worked. Since its creation, it has been concerned with standards of products, which, in many cases have been tangible. The IEC- International Electrotechnical Committee is actually the branch of ISO that is dealing with digital issues. The internal mechanism of the ISO itself, committees, expert groups etc is a long and boring one and very few people are actually committed to it. Then there is the 'standing' of National Bodies within the ISO itself. Suffice it to say that proposals that come to ISO goes to technical committees before showing up on the desks of the national boards. The process from Proposal to a Standard may take years. For the lack of human resources or whatever other reason, National Bodies only belong to committees where they have a vested interest. They may be 'O' or 'P' members. Observing members' do not really weigh in much but Participating members do. But to be a P member, you will need a mirror committee at your national level. Given that time spent on National Standards Boards are not paid, it is almost suicidal to keep up with the volume of work that is required. Until the OOXML issue, there were only 2 African countries that were P members in the Sub Committee of the Technical Committee that deals with Document formats. These were Kenya and South Africa. A few others where members but only as Observers. It meant that in a continent of 53 countries, only 2 had an IT mirror committee in their National Standards Boards! We picked up a campaign sometimes after the 3rd Conference on FOSS the Digital Commons organised by the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA). It was basically to senstise on the need for Open standards.. but the action framework was not even there! So far, Nigeria and Ghana are the ones appointing an IT officer at teh National Standards body. Otherwise, we will still remain with issues around petrol, agricultural and industrial goods. The advocacy on mainstreaming the issues raised by physically changed persons within ISO, therefore, is a work that will need to be done and well done, beginning from the national standards board and moving up to the ISO itself. But recently, the working methods of the ISO have come under great scrutiny and I believe that with time, the methods will be bound to change. But for now, the ISO only deals with standards submitters, experts groups, working groups, technical committees and National Bodies! ----- Original Message ---- From: "governance-request at lists.cpsr.org" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:56:53 AM Subject: governance Digest Tue, 12 Aug 2008 (3/3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 06:16:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:16:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <200808130025.1kt7VnSB3Nl3491@mx-nebolish.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <48A162E8.AB8448A2@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Agreed with the pro bono concern. I didn't think of that one. Good catch Parminder! >:) Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > In my view, an expert evaluation does have a role. However its > relationship with, and political subordination to, the public > consultation process should be strongly clear. It exists not to give a > definitive view of the IGF, which assessment is political and belongs > to the people, stakeholders, constituent groups etc…. > > At the same time, the basis of choosing the experts should be clear > and transparent, and should meet the purpose of the evaluation with > regard to the context, role and mandate of the IGF. Both the > neutrality and the appropriateness to ‘context, role and mandate’ > (that derives form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in full > detail. > > I am also very wary, and somewhat suspicious, of pro bono evaluations > offered by any expert or agency. And I have a feeling that there is a > strong possibility that this route may be attempted in this case. > Choice of expert should be based on rational criteria as described > above, and not on the basis of any pro bono offer. I think this too > should be stated . > > Taking the views expressed so far on this together, and adding from > the above, I propose the following part to replace the stated part of > our input. > > As at present this part read – “it is important that a review and > evaluation of the IGF begins promptly.” > > Suggested amended text (of some length, because the evaluation is > going to be one of the important political activity in the next few > months/ year) > > “It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > promptly. The review should be done through wide public consultations, > including with IGF participants. This should be a formal process, > which is very open and transparent. If it is felt required to do an > outside expert assessment to help this review process, complete due > diligence should be exercised. The process of selection of the expert > should be based on rational criteria connected to the context, role > and mandate of the IGF as per the WSIS. The rationale behind such > selection should be made public. The terms of reference should be open > and based on appropriate consultations. The role of the expert input > as a mean to assist the review process anchored in public > consultations, and its subordination to it, should be made clear. > Experts should not be chosen just because their services are available > pro bono. ” > > I still have about 14 hours or so to take in comments. If I find this > suggested amendment is found controversial, I will go back to the > original, and seek IGC’s views on this issue separately. > > Thanks. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:09 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > Jeff, > > The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, since 'experts' cannot > apply for a gig for which there has been no call, your question on who > exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. And I did tell you my > view you on the relative weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective > IGF reviews by governments. But that is just my opinion. > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > Lee and all, > > Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my questions. > None the less it would > be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for > purposes of non-nepotism. > I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being > selected from the UN. They > have no "real world" experts, IMO. > > Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think Carlos is just being practical, since it is quite likely > that an outside 'expert' group will be brought in, with the expert > selected by UN staffers from amongst the applicants for the gig, > whenever a call goes out requesting bids. Presuming a public call does > go out. For governments and other sources of funding, the expert > report might be seen as definitive, presuming it is reasonably well > done. > > > > The IGF engaging in self-reflection and self-criticism, is as Milton > suggests also needed, and is part of the idea for the workshop some of > us CSers are working on getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving > also other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back into the expert > report. > > > > So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > > > > Lee > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > > > Carlos and all, > > > > Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > > and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > > such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > > > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > > > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the > Forum > > > participants? > > > > > > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > > > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, > it > > > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this > "expert" > > > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation > etc as > > > well). > > > > > > frt rgds > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the > sentence > > > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > > > > > > > > Old language: > > > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > > > >> begins promptly. > > > > > > > > Proposed change: > > > > > > > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with > IGF > > > > participants begins promptly. > > > > > > > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and > evaluation" by > > > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal > consultation" with > > > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the > Forum? > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > > >> programme paper. > > > >> > > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > > >> > > > >> Just say yes or no. > > > >> > > > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to > get > > > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > > > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos > and > > > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > > >> > > > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they > have > > > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or > not. > > > >> > > > >> Adam > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > > >> > > > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully > supports the > > > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as > core > > > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must > remain > > > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > > > >> > > > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest > that > > > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the > other > > > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the > Tunis > > > >> Agenda, > > > >> > > > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the > desirability > > > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with > Forum > > > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a > workshop > > > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > > > >> > and > > > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support > discussion > > > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work > with > > > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > > > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > > > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way > forward > > > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > > >> > > > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > > > > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > > > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some > workshops > > > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts > have > > > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > > > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main > session > > > >> workshops? > > > >> > > > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would > like > > > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all > stakeholders > > > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working > groups > > > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > > > >> influencing the main session debates.) > > > >> > > > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > > > > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, > breaks > > > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, > food > > > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > > >> > > > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > > > > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of > this. > > > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to > manage a > > > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating > from > > > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by > the > > > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > > > >> addressed. > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> > > > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders > strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Name: winmail.dat > > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > > Encoding: base64 > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 06:51:35 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:51:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A16B37.CE3D2063@ix.netcom.com> Adam and all, Well Adam I am sure I don't agree fully. The old adage is that the Devil is often in the Details is oh so true. Milton as a legally trained individual know this all to well. So am I, and I do as well. Seems that Parminder is also so clued, as it were... Right now there doesn't seen to be a draft document or specified proposal. This is fine if this is the beginning of the process. It's not if one is asking for blind trust support. Yet I do support the effort and concept. I reserve my support and would council our members to do so as well for the time being and until there is a draft document, and or position statement paper. Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, Milton: > > I agree some change is necessary, but have > problems with both your proposals. I suggest > trying to stick as closely as possible to the > text Parminder sent yesterday making a slight > change such as: > > "it is important that a review and evaluation of > the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process > involving all stakeholders" > > I think you are opening up a simple comment in > ways that need too much discussion. > > Parminder: you are getting into too much detail. > The impact of the statement we need to make > "begin the review, we are offering to help" is > being lost. > > Milton: > > "Formal consultation with the IGF" may be > interpreted in ways we like less, leading perhaps > to focus more on discussion only within the Forum > as it is convened on an annual basis and any post > CSTD follow-up (i.e. with govt as lead entities.) > One response on the MAG list to the proposal to > begin an outside evaluation was: > > "With due respect to [name deleted] and IGF > Secretariat, I am asking myself whether proposed > way of action corresponds to the WSIS decision > which reads as follows: > 76.We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine > the desirability of the continuation of the > Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, > and to make recommendations to the UN Membership > in this regard. > In other words, IGF Chair Nitin Desai and the > Secretariat is asked to assess the usefulness of > continuation of the IGF in the formal way -- > session of the forth or fifth IGF meeting and > advise UN SG on the course of further action. > [stuff deleted] > In other words, I am not supporting a conduct of > outside evaluation, but suggest returning to the > question of the possible form of the formal > consultation with Forum participants after India > meeting in May 2009." > > Note, this was in response to whether or not a > draft terms of reference for the evaluation (a > "food for thought" document) should be put out > for public comment. > > Just go back to a simple reformulation of the > text people have been reading please. Let's use: > > "it is important that a review and evaluation of > the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process > involving all stakeholders" > > Thanks, > > Adam > > At 9:55 AM +0530 8/13/08, Parminder wrote: > >Hi All > > > > > >In my view, an expert evaluation does have a > >role. However its relationship with, and > >political subordination to, the public > >consultation process should be strongly clear. > >It exists not to give a definitive view of the > >IGF, which assessment is political and belongs > >to the people, stakeholders, constituent groups > >etcŠ. > > > >At the same time, the basis of choosing the > >experts should be clear and transparent, and > >should meet the purpose of the evaluation with > >regard to the context, role and mandate of the > >IGF. Both the neutrality and the appropriateness > >to Œcontext, role and mandate¹ (that derives > >form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in > >full detail. > > > >I am also very wary, and somewhat suspicious, of > >pro bono evaluations offered by any expert or > >agency. And I have a feeling that there is a > >strong possibility that this route may be > >attempted in this case. Choice of expert should > >be based on rational criteria as described > >above, and not on the basis of any pro bono > >offer. I think this too should be stated . > > > >Taking the views expressed so far on this > >together, and adding from the above, I propose > >the following part to replace the stated part of > >our input. > > > >As at present this part read ­ ³it is important > >that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > >promptly.² > > > >Suggested amended text (of some length, because > >the evaluation is going to be one of the > >important political activity in the next few > >months/ year) > > > >³It is important that a review and evaluation of > >the IGF begins promptly. The review should be > >done through wide public consultations, > >including with IGF participants. This should be > >a formal process, which is very open and > >transparent. If it is felt required to do an > >outside expert assessment to help this review > >process, complete due diligence should be > >exercised. The process of selection of the > >expert should be based on rational criteria > >connected to the context, role and mandate of > >the IGF as per the WSIS. The rationale behind > >such selection should be made public. The terms > >of reference should be open and based on > >appropriate consultations. The role of the > >expert input as a mean to assist the review > >process anchored in public consultations, and > >its subordination to it, should be made clear. > >Experts should not be chosen just because their > >services are available pro bono. ² > > > > > >I still have about 14 hours or so to take in > >comments. If I find this suggested amendment is > >found controversial, I will go back to the > >original, and seek IGC¹s views on this issue > >separately. > > > >Thanks. > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > > > >From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > >Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:09 AM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > > > >Jeff, > > > >The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further, > >since 'experts' cannot apply for a gig for which > >there has been no call, your question on who > >exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet. > >And I did tell you my view you on the relative > >weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective IGF > >reviews by governments. But that is just my > >opinion. > > > >Lee > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jeffrey A. Williams > >[mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > >Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > > > >Lee and all, > > > > Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't > >answer my questions. None the less it would > >be good to have an outside review if for no > >other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism. > >I do of course have serious reservations if the > >"Expert" being selected from the UN. They > >have no "real world" experts, IMO. > > > >Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think Carlos is just being practical, since > >>it is quite likely that an outside 'expert' > >>group will be brought in, with the expert > >>selected by UN staffers from amongst the > >>applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes > >>out requesting bids. Presuming a public call > >>does go out. For governments and other sources > >>of funding, the expert report might be seen as > >>definitive, presuming it is reasonably well > >>done. > >> > >> The IGF engaging in self-reflection and > >>self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also > >>needed, and is part of the idea for the > >>workshop some of us CSers are working on > >>getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also > >>other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back > >>into the expert report. > >> > >> So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other. > >> > >> Lee > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams > >>[mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > >> Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme > >> > >> Carlos and all, > >> > >> Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts" > >> and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would > >> such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have? > >> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> > >> > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an > >> > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum > >> > participants? > >> > > >> > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be > >> > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it > >> > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" > >> > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as > >> > well). > >> > > >> > frt rgds > >> > > >> > --c.a. > >> > > >> > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence > >> > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. > >> > > > >> > > Old language: > >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF > >> > >> begins promptly. > >> > > > >> > > Proposed change: > >> > > > >> > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF > >> > > participants begins promptly. > >> > > > >> > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by > >> > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with > >> > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? > >> > > > >> > > Milton Mueller > >> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >> > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > >> > > ------------------------------ > >> > > Internet Governance Project: > >> > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM > >> > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > >> > >> programme paper. > >> > >> > >> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >> > >> > >> > >> Just say yes or no. > >> > >> > >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > >> > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > >> > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > >> > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > >> > >> > >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > >> > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >> > >> > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > >> > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > >> > >> a central theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > >> > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > >> > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > >> > >> Agenda, > >> > >> > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >> > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >> > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > >> > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > >> > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > >> > >> > >><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> > >>and > >> > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > >> > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > >> > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > >> > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > >> > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > >> > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >> > >> > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >> > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > >> > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > >> > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > >> > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > >> > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > >> > >> workshops? > >> > >> > >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >> > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > >> > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > >> > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > >> > >> influencing the main session debates.) > >> > >> > >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > >> > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > >> > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > >> > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >> > >> > >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > >> > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > >> > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > >> > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > >> > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > >> > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > >> > >> addressed. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > >> > >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > > >> > > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > > > >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > > >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > >> Abraham Lincoln > >> > >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >> > >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >> =============================================================== > >> Updated 1/26/04 > >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >> My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Name: winmail.dat > >> winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > >> Encoding: base64 > > > >Regards, > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >=============================================================== > >Updated 1/26/04 > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 13 05:10:35 2008 From: kettemann at gmx.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:10:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <48A1FE12.50604@wzb.eu> References: <48A1FE12.50604@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48A2A50B.1050100@gmx.at> I'm happy to express my support for the letter including the amendment. Matthias Jeanette Hofmann schrieb: > Needless to say, I support this letter including amendments as well. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> I support the letter (thanks Adam) and Milton's amendment >> >> Bill >> >> >> On 8/12/08 9:55 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >>> I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence >>> about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. >>> >>> Old language: >>>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >>>> begins promptly. >>> Proposed change: >>> >>> It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF >>> participants begins promptly. >>> >>> Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by >>> some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with >>> the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? >>> >>> Milton Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>> ------------------------------ >>> Internet Governance Project: >>> http://internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>>> programme paper. >>>> >>>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>>> >>>> Just say yes or no. >>>> >>>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>>> >>>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>>> >>>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >>>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >>>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >>>> a central theme of the IGF process. >>>> >>>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >>>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >>>> Agenda, >>>> >>>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >>>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >>>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >>>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >>>> >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >>>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>>> and >>>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>>> >>>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>>> workshops? >>>> >>>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>>> influencing the main session debates.) >>>> >>>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >>>> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>>> >>>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>>> addressed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann Chefredakteur law at graz - Zeitschrift der Fakultätsvertretung Rechtswissenschaften an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz E law-graz at gmx.at W http://zeitung.rewi.at Berliner Ring 6, 8047 Graz, Austria T +43/676/70 17 175 E matthias.kettemann at aon.at ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:18:29 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:18:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F5C@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080812105402.3F539A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <48A181C2.6090007@jacquelinemorris.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F5C@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I am very much in accord with the admendments of the letter and the principles of the letter. Therefore, I am signatory to it. Aaron On 8/12/08, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > I agree > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris > [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 8:27 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > I agree > Jacqueline > Adam Peake wrote: > > Parminder, > > > > Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on > > the 15th. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. > >> > >> I think this draft is good to take forward. > >> > >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go > >> into the > >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most > >> prominently in > >> such a paper. > >> > >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the > >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if > >> needed, > >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in > >> clear > >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling > >> the > >> document as too general and such. > >> > >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which > >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few > >> changes > >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the > >> members for > >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough > >> consensus. > >> > >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to > >> be able > >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough > >> consensus. > >> > >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat > >> above) > >> > >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> letter > >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a > >> core > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a > >> central theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >> of the > >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >> participants, > >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > >> Membership in this regard." > >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > >> promptly, and > >> in a duly open and participative manner. > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on > >> "The > >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another > >> with the > >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > >> > > and > >> we would > >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the > >> organizing > >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward > >> session, in > >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being > >> done in > >> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to > >> work > >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF. > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >> setting-up > >> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has > >> been > >> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working > >> groups and > >> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced > >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups > >> organizing > >> the main session workshops? > >> > >> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more > >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be > >> assured > >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal > >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main > >> session > >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) > >> > >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been > >> identified as > >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this > >> issue is > >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know > >> about the > >> funding support available for participation of civil society from > >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be > >> too > >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that > >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > >>> programme > >>> paper. > >>> > >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >>> > >>> Just say yes or no. > >>> > >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > >>> > >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >>> > >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > >>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > >>> a central theme of the IGF process. > >>> > >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > >>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > >>> Agenda, > >>> > >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > >>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > >>> > >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > >>> promptly. > >>> > >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > >>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > >>> > > and > >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >>> > >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > >>> workshops? > >>> > >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > >>> influencing the main session debates.) > >>> > >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > >> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >>> > >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > >>> addressed. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > > I agree > Jacqueline > Adam Peake wrote: > > Parminder, > > > > Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on > > the 15th. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it. > >> > >> I think this draft is good to take forward. > >> > >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go > >> into the > >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most > >> prominently in > >> such a paper. > >> > >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the > >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if > >> needed, > >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in > >> clear > >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling > >> the > >> document as too general and such. > >> > >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which > >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few > >> changes > >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the > >> members for > >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough > >> consensus. > >> > >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to > >> be able > >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough > >> consensus. > >> > >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat > >> above) > >> > >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> letter > >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a > >> core > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a > >> central theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >> of the > >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >> participants, > >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > >> Membership in this regard." > >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > >> promptly, and > >> in a duly open and participative manner. > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on > >> "The > >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another > >> with the > >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > >> > > and > >> we would > >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the > >> organizing > >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward > >> session, in > >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being > >> done in > >> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to > >> work > >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF. > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >> setting-up > >> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has > >> been > >> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working > >> groups and > >> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced > >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups > >> organizing > >> the main session workshops? > >> > >> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more > >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be > >> assured > >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal > >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main > >> session > >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) > >> > >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been > >> identified as > >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this > >> issue is > >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know > >> about the > >> funding support available for participation of civil society from > >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be > >> too > >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that > >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > >>> programme > >>> paper. > >>> > >>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >>> > >>> Just say yes or no. > >>> > >>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > >>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > >>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > >>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > >>> > >>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > >>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >>> > >>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > >>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > >>> a central theme of the IGF process. > >>> > >>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > >>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other > >>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis > >>> Agenda, > >>> > >>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > >>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > >>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > >>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > >>> > >>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > >>> promptly. > >>> > >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop > >>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" > >>> > > and > >>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion > >>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with > >>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the > >>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > >>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > >>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >>> > >>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > >>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > >>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > >>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > >>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > >>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > >>> workshops? > >>> > >>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > >>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > >>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > >>> influencing the main session debates.) > >>> > >>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > >>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > >>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > >> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >>> > >>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > >>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > >>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > >>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > >>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > >>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > >>> addressed. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at peter-dambier.de Wed Aug 13 05:37:21 2008 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:37:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] DNSSEC and War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A2AB51.7040602@peter-dambier.de> Yehuda Katz wrote: > Russian Cyber Attacks Shut Down Georgian Websites > By Stefanie Hoffman, ChannelWeb > 7:22 PM EDT Tue. Aug. 12, 2008 > > Art. Ref.: http://www.crn.com/security/210003057 > > Following just six days after the initiation of the Georgia-Russian conflict, > the Georgian Internet became the target of a coordinated cyber attack, which > compromised several government Websites with defacement and Denial of Service > attacks, crippling the nation's ability to disseminate information. > Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's site was defaced, integrating his > image with those of Hitler. The sabotage was followed by a DDoS attack that > left the presidential site inaccessible. > > Denial of service attacks are conducted when a coordinated network of computers > sends multiple requests to a given server or computer at exactly the same time, > which subsequently shuts down the targeted computer under the barrage of > incoming requests. > > Meanwhile, Georgian news sites and other popular information forums were also > blocked during the attack. > > "As more government services move toward the Internet, you end up with more > exposure to these types of attack, whether it was an organization and executed > by government or criminal elements acting at somebody's direction," said Kevin > Newmeyer, worldwide principal for strategic security and counter terrorism for > security company Unisys (NYSE:UIS). "It's hard to prove it was a > government-directed operation." > > The attacks ultimately prompted the Georgian governmental sites to switch to > U.S. based hosts, while Georgia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs moved to a > blogspot account. Maybe that is exactly what the attacker wanted. Who is interested? Georgians exiled in the U.S.? American hosters? The georgian government? > > The exact sources of the attacks are yet unknown. Experts say that some ISPs > appear to be sourced in Russia, and some speculate that the Russian government > had used its resources to fund the attack, which was launched the day before > Russia drove tanks into South Ossetia. They need their resources. Buying a foreign botnet is much cheaper and more efficient. > > Other unconfirmed reports suggest that members of the cybercrime organization > Russian Business Network are responsible for the coordinated sabotage of the > Georgian Websites. > > "It looks like it was coming from Russia, or is it a co-opted server that > wasn't properly patched, with people taking over the computer and doing things > with it?" said Newmeyer. "With the Russian Business Network, you can rent out a > server or a botnet for a number of hours. You pay your cyber gold and these > transactions happen offshore. That's one of the challenges that governments > face." If the hosts were U.S. based or china based then that would be plausible. The hosts based in russia, who is profitting from the belief that russia was it? > > Other experts, such as Paul Ferguson, advanced threats researchers for Trend > Micro, maintained that the actual RBN ISP has long been shut down, disbanding > into less obvious activity spread all over the globe. > > The first of the coordinated cyber attacks against Georgia was detected in > July, weeks before Russia launched its military intervention. Experts say that > attacks launched in tandem with military conflict will likely increase as more > global infrastructure is controlled by the Internet. > > While experts hesitate to call the Georgia attack an act of cyber terrorism, > most agree that it was part of a strategic campaign to eliminate Georgia's > ability to disseminate information. > > "It's a brute force attack, one that goes all the way back to the Mafiaboy > attacks of 2000," said David Perry, global director of education for Trend > Micro. "This is not a verifiable cyber war, but it is clearly a step in that > direction." Brute force means botnet. Who controls it? who has bought it? Ask the NSA. They do control international money transfer. They do know it? But is it in their interest to tell the world? > > The attacks recall a similar cyber attack in Estonia in April of 2007, when > government, parliament, and newspaper sites, as well as numerous online banking > operations were shut down after a conflict that resulted in the removal of > several Russian World War II monuments. However, experts contend that the > recent information attack on Georgian Websites was more coordinated, > professional and sophisticated in nature than last year's attack on Estonia > infrastructure. > > "The Estonia incident was more what I would call hactivism, more of an attack > by impassioned amateurs," said Ferguson. "This is a professional attack, and it > is vastly more serious." > > -- > > Of what value is it, knowing who started the War? If we find out, then the culprit will stand there with shit pants for all the world to see. We dont need to pull his pants down. He will do it himself finally. The next one will think twice before taking that risk. > The question is - Can DNSSEC prevent Wars? Can flies prevent wars? If you have enough flies so they spoil all the food and nothing is left for the soldiers, then yes, flies can prevent wars. DNSSEC - if it binds all computer power so nothing is left for military intelligence, then yes DNSSEC can prevent wars. > > Re: DNSSEC > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSSEC > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 06:01:22 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:01:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Jaco Thanks for your support for the FoE Project, and congratulations on the progress that you've made in Costa Rica around the 'virtual personality' right. I think in English it's more commonly referred to as the right to privacy online/ the right to protect 'digital identity'? Yes, I do think that the recent developments in German law are very positive and important. This process of adapting national legislation and constitutional protections to the internet age is incredibly important to watch and for rights activists to be involved in. Germany's constitutional court has addressed directly the complications of balancing privacy rights with notions of the 'public interest' (eg security) - I think it would be great to have someone who was involved in the process on the IGF panel concerning cyber-security and trust. Regarding how this relates to the FoE project - in our framework we would see introducing protections for digital identity and privacy in national law as a way for governments to uphold the principle concerning privacy. Privacy is obviously a key principle, with an intimate relationship to freedom of expression. Best wishes, Lisa From: Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com] Sent: 12 August 2008 02:32 To: Lisa Horner Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research Dear Lisa, Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of course it has to be done in the right way.... If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", made a few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. Thanks a lot for your time. Best regards, Jaco On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: Hi Max and all Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally interested in your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights wiki? Apologies in advance for the length of this email - those who aren't interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and content. The latest draft of the principles is available and open for comment at http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them to provide an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different scales. For example, our project partners are currently working to elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in turn will provide the foundations for policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture and the right to participation in government. We've taken an expansive definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights institutions and lawyers around the world take. This includes positive dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in place for the right to be realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to the internet or to communication. The sentiments and demands expressed by these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system. In my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with them actually means in practice. The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. It is taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the international human rights system. In this way, if the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions. Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the internet' are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and am keen to explore opportunities to collaborate on further research on any of these issues. Many thanks, Lisa From: bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Max Senges Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research dear lisa and all Lisa wrote: > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in the fall. It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication best max On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Hallo all Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the appropriate institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues quite often. They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here in South Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the draft bill was badly not well conceived and very controversial. I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public awareness of the issue. It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. Personally, Rui, I would just ignore it. Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and internet governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say there is a lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what the implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work with on specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt this approach in our access work. I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this terrain enough, altough there are exceptions. Anriette Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 From: "Lisa Horner" To: , "Rui Correia" Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam] Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > in SA? > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Lisa ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bill-of-Rights mailing list Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Aug 13 06:02:18 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:02:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging issues concerning internet communications. I agree that constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the international rights system stems from the moral obligations it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always need legal enforcement. I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance institution that would be responsible for monitoring governance policy and processes and assessing whether they uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone know if there was any more work done on that front? Many thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: 12 August 2008 04:29 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research Jaco and all, My remarks, response and thoughts interspersed below Jaco's. Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Dear Jeffrey, please read my answer to your email below.... > > > > > Well there are a few other courts to go through before one > even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the > supreme > Court in the US. > > Agree. > The bottom line is to have this new right added as a new fundamental > right in the Constitution. This will have implications not just for > other Courts, but also for many Government offices, including the > FCC. > > Ok, but you realize that in the US anyway, the Constitution has > not been amended in quite some time. Adding additional rights > as they apply to the US "Bill of Rights" a US founding document, > might be a better way to go. Although I don't believe that the > US "Bill of Rights" has ever been amended... So to do so is a very > steep hill to climb and will likely take years if not decades. > > > > > > > > > > That's not enforcement in any event. That's > adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher > course. > > I am always ready to learn more! ;-) > > Same here. > > > > > > Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme > Court, > but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually > been heard > in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these > instances > either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient > to be > heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. > > Agree. > > > > So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly > provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend > > such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or > Rights? > > Can you please be kind to write this question again?. I want to be > sure that I understand the question before answering it. > > Does the Internet "Bill of Rights" being proposed seek to > supplement/amend any other countries equivelent? > > > > > > > Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other > countries? > > Ideally, every country should include this new right in the > Constitution. In Costa Rica, he Congress is studying to include this > new fundamental right in the Constitution. In Germany, one of the > countries more advanced in the world in legal developments, the > Constitutional Court (Supreme Court) already added this new > fundamental right, a few months ago. > > Well Costa Rica isn't exactly a first world country with a stable > political atmosphere. Germany has gone a long ways in expanding > users Internet rights and protections, as well has regressed on the > norm for same. So 2 countries does not a global consensus make, > but it's a tiny start! >:) > > > Whom would enforce those? > > Each country has its own systems to enforce human/fundamental rights. > It goes in many levels, as you wrote before (several types of Courts, > and even Government). > > Yes I am fully aware as I have lived in three countries in my > lifetime > so far. Most have very little enforcment of Civil rights of any sort > that is substancial. Those that do, the individual cost is > prohibitive > to the average user/stakeholder to get enforced. > > > > > > The newly formed civil rights division > of the International House of Justice perhaps? > > Of course they can help, but most of the work will be in the National > Courts. > > Agreed. > > > > > How would such > new rights be so recognized by such an august body without > nearly > every country's legal structure amended appropriately? > > Agree. First the country legal structure has to change. > > Ok. I hope you realize I doubt that I will live longe enough > before enough countries achieve this very lofty goal. Very steep > hill here. Just being realistic... > > > > > > > And than > yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in > multi-jurisdictional > cases? > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Well I guess than we can not count on Russia or China, and not > likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria. > > > > > > How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Ok, so again same as just above, I guess than we can not count > on Russia or China, and not likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria, > at least not in my life time. > > And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? > Interpol > perhaps? < shrug > > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > Ok so very little enforcment in most countries, no third world > countries, and no purely nationalistic countries. And very few > middle income to lower income users/stakeholders can > reasonably expect in the near term, any significant enforcment. > > > > > > > Thank you for your time Jeffrey!, > > Welcome! And thank you for your frank and prompt responses... > > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme > Court. > > > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of > Rights. What > > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, > whom would > > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US > Congress, > > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Lisa, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive > and I support. > > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa > Rica. > > >> > > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality > fundamental right is > > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE > initiative. Of > > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > > >> > > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear > and good virtual > > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will > be much easier > > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > >> > > >> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, > "internet right", > > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional > Court?. > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Jaco > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > > >> Horner wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Max and all > > >> > > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm > equally > > >> interested in your work and in exploring > potentials for > > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research > ideas' and > > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights > wiki? > > >> > > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email > - those > > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into > skim-read > > >> mode now! > > >> > > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing > Freedom > > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned > before that > > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in > different > > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if > adhered to, > > >> would shape a global communications environment > that would > > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' > communications > > >> environment. They address issues spanning > infrastructure, > > >> code and content. The latest draft of the > principles is > > >> available and open for comment at > > >> > > >> > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > >> > > >> The principles and values that they express are > purposefully > > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific > contexts. > > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching > framework for > > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different > scales. For > > >> example, our project partners are currently > working to > > >> elaborate what they might mean in different > country > > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the > foundations for > > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces > where > > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share > certain > > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy > accordingly. > > >> > > >> We have been working to base all of our work so > far in > > >> international human rights standards, in > particular freedom > > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right > to > > >> participation in government. We've taken an > expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but > not all) > > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the > world > > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of > freedom of > > >> expression, including the notion that governments > are > > >> responsible for putting the necessary > > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right > to be > > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > believe that we > > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the > right to > > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments > and > > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are > already > > >> contained within the human rights system. In my > opinion, > > >> our energy should be focused on further developing > and > > >> upholding what we have already, for example, > further > > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of > expression in > > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette > and Milton > > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > > >> understanding about what international rights > standards and > > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > > >> > > >> The research that I referred to before is intended > to > > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an > expansive > > >> definition of freedom of expression is being > supported in > > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and > case law, > > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to > be done. > > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a > starting > > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > > >> international human rights system. In this way, > if the > > >> framework was used as a basis for policy > discussion, human > > >> rights standards would effectively be > 'mainstreamed' within > > >> the discussions. > > >> > > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that > these > > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a > positive > > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared > norms and > > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the > internet' > > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are > the most > > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards > in the > > >> world, which (in reference to earlier > conversations) is why > > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build > on them, > > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > >> > > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to > hear > > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and > am keen to > > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further > research on > > >> any of these issues. > > >> > > >> Many thanks, > > >> > > >> Lisa > > >> > > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On > Behalf Of > > >> Max Senges > > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette > Esterhuysen; > > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > >> dear lisa and all > > >> > > >> Lisa wrote: > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's > Center > > >> for Internet and Society has offered to > collaborate by > > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame > research > > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be > taken up in > > >> the fall. > > >> > > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware > of all the > > >> other research undertaken to better understand a > Rights > > >> based approach to IG. > > >> > > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global > Partners > > >> research? > > >> > > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is > very much > > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we > complement, > > >> share and avoid duplication > > >> > > >> best > > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette > Esterhuysen > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hallo all > > >> > > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights > Commission > > >> is the appropriate > > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal > with hate > > >> speech issues quite often. > > >> > > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent > work. > > >> Here is their URL > > >> > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > > >> > > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before > parlaiment a > > >> few times here in South > > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I > remember > > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > > >> > > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint > to the HRC > > >> (human rights > > >> commission) would the way to start if the > intension is to > > >> create public awareness of > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... > which is > > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > > >> would just ignore it. > > >> > > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the > relationship > > >> between rights and internet > > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground > since > > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights > rhetoric and to > > >> work out what the > > >> implementable rights-based public policy > principles are that > > >> we can work with on > > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for > example > > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > > >> this approach in our access work. > > >> > > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights > movement has > > >> not engaged this terrain > > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > > >> > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> > > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 > +0100 > > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > > >> > > >> To: > , > > >> "Rui Correia" > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking > down a site > > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > > >> Send reply to: > governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > > >> Horner" > >> partners.co.uk> > > >> > > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth > filing a > > >> complaint with the > > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA > bill of > > >> rights states > > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to > "advocacy of > > >> hatred that > > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, > and that > > >> constitutes > > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by > any other > > >> legislation > > >> > in SA? > > >> > > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet > governance > > >> issues can be > > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human > rights > > >> lawyers and > > >> > institutions are usually absent from the > debate. Human > > >> rights and > > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are > arguably one of > > >> the only > > >> > global governance institutions that is > 'thickening' in the > > >> current age > > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches > also have an > > >> inbuilt > > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between > different > > >> rights and > > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot > of work to > > >> be done in > > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that > they're capable > > >> of dealing > > >> > with new issues, including those relating to > freedom of > > >> expression and > > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly > with national > > >> human > > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that > process? > > >> > > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment > that many > > >> new campaigns > > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I > think that > > >> they should > > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm > understanding of, > > >> existing human > > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal > and at all > > >> scales. > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > policy > > >> principles based > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > interoperability, > > >> universal > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > the > > >> international human > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > interesting > > >> insights... > > >> > > > >> > Any thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Lisa > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > > >> Association for Progressive Communications > > >> anriette at apc.org > > >> http://www.apc.org > > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who > points out > > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of > deeds > > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the > man who is > > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and > > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs > and comes > > >> short again and again; who knows the great > enthusiasms, the > > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy > cause; ... so > > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and > timid > > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > > >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > >> Costa Rica > > >> > > >> What is an i-name? > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not > with what is > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L > multiplied by > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > > > > =============================================================== > > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > Costa Rica > > > > What is an i-name? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > ===== > ========================================================= > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 06:02:53 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:02:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Yes, Ginger is right. As far as I'm aware, the IBR-DC doesn't have a document, even in draft form, of a proposed "bill of rights" for the internet. The IBR-DC has evolved since its inception in Athens. As I understand it, its initial founders envisaged building a bill of rights for the internet, applying international rights to the internet age and defining new rights where considered appropriate. Since then, the coalition has grown to include a more diverse membership, many of whom don't necessarily agree that a new bill of rights is necessary. I for one am keen to apply the existing international bill of human rights to new issues that have arisen with the ongoing evolution of internet-based communications. As the draft letter to the secretariat states, the coalition is now aiming to be an umbrella coalition for all people interested in working on issues at the intersection between human rights and internet governance. The coalition encompasses a wide range of people with different view points, but aims to provide a space where issues can be worked out through discussion, research and policy work. There's still discussion about whether "Bill of rights" is the right name for the coalition. For the moment, it was agreed that it's still relevant...the resulting "bill" could be a collection of existing and/or new documents (legislation, agreements, codes...) that the coalition believes can protect fundamental human rights in the age of the internet. Or it could be the existing international bill of rights, with accompanying guidance on their interpretation in the internet age. For now, the coalition's focus is to open spaces for productive discussion around these issues at the IGF...an important starting point! All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: 12 August 2008 02:26 To: Ginger Paque Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights Ginger and all, Sorry none of the links your provided render the actual document of the "Bill of Rights" to which the letter is associated. Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeffrey and all, > > As I understand it, the text of the letter we are discussing is the one at > the bottom of this email. The actual Bill of Rights is a work in progress, > with information available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/; its > documents available at: http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php and > its Progress Report at http://internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/doc.php being > the latest (June 30th) that I know of. > > Perhaps Max can fill in more information for this discussion. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Enviado el: Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008 08:22 p.m. > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > Ginger and all, > > I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to > find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also > many of our members have expressed the same, yet have > great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of > Rights" version with all amendments please? > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Yes! > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. > > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights > > > > Yes > > > > Bill > > > > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > It's an important letter. > > > > > > Please endorse. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi All > > >> > > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed > > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern > > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF > > >> agenda and program, and there was general > > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has > > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to > > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content > > >> can be included in the official consultation > > >> document for September MAG consultation.. > > >> > > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible endorsement. > > >> > > >> The letter can be seen at > > >> > > > > t > > >> > > > heme_of_the_igf>http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? > > r > > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf > > >> , and the final text is also given below this > > >> email > > >> > > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. > > >> > > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and > > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at > > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the > > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only > > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the > > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to > > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text > > >> as a condition for endorsement. > > >> > > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter > > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this > > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that > > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each > > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is > > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do > > >> so. > > >> > > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please > > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC > > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or > > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating > > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance > > >> will not be registered. > > >> > > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 > > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the > > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough > > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or > > >> not, and take action accordingly. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF > > >> > > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, > > >> > > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of > > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of > > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda > > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes > > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have > > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and > > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have > > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this > > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. > > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant > > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and > > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. > > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only > > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general > > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. > > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about > > >> how to expand the opportunities that the > > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental > > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in > > >> international law, the title of the main > > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of > > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions > > >> will focus on security measures, without > > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these > > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to > > >> support and advance human rights, for example to > > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. > > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic > > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF > > >> participants are also concerned with the limited > > >> consideration of rights on the program, we > > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and > > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider > > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the > > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to > > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the > > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an > > >> overarching theme. > > >> We recognize that development of the draft > > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would > > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without > > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger > > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main > > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and > > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of > > >> security would be better addressed in the > > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the > > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session > > >> could then bring these two strands together. > > >> Another possibility to give rights a more > > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of > > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and > > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with > > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". > > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report > > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the > > >> coalition would like to offer its support in > > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership > > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to > > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in > > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory > > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive > > >> adequate attention at the IGF. > > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. > > >> Kind regards, > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > >> > > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is > > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all > > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with > > >> rights issues and internet governance. The > > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities > > >> to protect and expand our human rights as > > >> protected by international law, and offers > > >> significant new possibilities for development > > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also > > >> presents us with serious challenges, including > > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from > > >> the openness of the internet with the need for > > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits > > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The > > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights > > >> is working to address these issues, with a view > > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to > > >> internet governance processes and decisions. > > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of > > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For > > >> example, some people in the coalition are > > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our > > >> protected when we use the internet, some are > > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms > > >> that guide internet governance, and others are > > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so > > >> that all have access to the benefits and > > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our > > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on > > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that > > >> these important issues can be given the > > >> attention that they deserve. > > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a > > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term > > >> goal, has already received a significant degree > > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has > > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the > > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in > > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a > > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with > > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an > > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy > > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such > > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for > > >> Progressive Communications have made similar > > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the > > >> IGF. > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 06:04:24 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:04:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <48A2A50B.1050100@gmx.at> References: <48A1FE12.50604@wzb.eu> <48A2A50B.1050100@gmx.at> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF4@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> I support the letter too. Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Matthias C. Kettemann [mailto:kettemann at gmx.at] Sent: 13 August 2008 10:11 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad I'm happy to express my support for the letter including the amendment. Matthias Jeanette Hofmann schrieb: > Needless to say, I support this letter including amendments as well. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> I support the letter (thanks Adam) and Milton's amendment >> >> Bill >> >> >> On 8/12/08 9:55 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >>> I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence >>> about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly. >>> >>> Old language: >>>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF >>>> begins promptly. >>> Proposed change: >>> >>> It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF >>> participants begins promptly. >>> >>> Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by >>> some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with >>> the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? >>> >>> Milton Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>> ------------------------------ >>> Internet Governance Project: >>> http://internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad >>>> programme paper. >>>> >>>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >>>> >>>> Just say yes or no. >>>> >>>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get >>>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to >>>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and >>>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) >>>> >>>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have >>>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >>>> >>>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >>>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core >>>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain >>>> a central theme of the IGF process. >>>> >>>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that >>>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other >>>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis >>>> Agenda, >>>> >>>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability >>>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum >>>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >>>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." >>>> >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop >>>> "The role and mandate of the IGF" >>>> and >>>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion >>>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with >>>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the >>>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to >>>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward >>>> session at the Hyderabad meeting. >>>> >>>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and >>>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main >>>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops >>>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have >>>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is >>>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session >>>> workshops? >>>> >>>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >>>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders >>>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups >>>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly >>>> influencing the main session debates.) >>>> >>>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the >>>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks >>>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food >>>> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >>>> >>>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing >>>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. >>>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a >>>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from >>>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the >>>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately >>>> addressed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann Chefredakteur law at graz - Zeitschrift der Fakultätsvertretung Rechtswissenschaften an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz E law-graz at gmx.at W http://zeitung.rewi.at Berliner Ring 6, 8047 Graz, Austria T +43/676/70 17 175 E matthias.kettemann at aon.at ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 06:14:20 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:44:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080813101438.C55D2A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Adam > I think you are opening up a simple comment in > ways that need too much discussion. > > Parminder: you are getting into too much detail. > The impact of the statement we need to make > "begin the review, we are offering to help" is > being lost. I agree there two different issues and they should preferable be kept separate. (1) of offering to help through our workshop etc, and applying to be in the WG for preparing the main session. (2) making sure the evaluation is done properly We should mention only the first one in this case which directly relates to IGF program. The second one was in my mind for some time when I picked up somewhere that outside expert evaluation, and possibly a pro bono one, might be under consideration. In any case I wanted IGC's position on this, and since the issue was opened up by some emails, I introduced it. I think we should go by the existing text as amended by Adam, and consult within the group on the evaluation process separately. The corresponding text for IGC's consideration stands as > "it is important that a review and evaluation of > the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process > involving all stakeholders" Thanks. Parminder I am also putting the full text of the statement that is being proposed, for which inputs will be taken for another 6 hours or so, and then it will be piut for consensus process for 48 hours. ____________ Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted as an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the same title at IGF, Hyderabad, and we would be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the process of review and evaluation of the IGF. It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the funding support available for participation of civil society from developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 06:38:49 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:38:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: <20080813101438.C55D2A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080813101438.C55D2A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks. Last week Jeanette forwarded an email from Markus Kummer about the review/external evaluation (email August 6, subject [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation]). The review will be on the agenda of September's open consultation, and any external review process a sub-item of that. I think we're taking the right approach by making our general views known for the August 15 deadline, and then working on detail for a statement to be read at the September meeting. Adam >Adam > >> I think you are opening up a simple comment in >> ways that need too much discussion. >> >> Parminder: you are getting into too much detail. >> The impact of the statement we need to make >> "begin the review, we are offering to help" is >> being lost. > > >I agree there two different issues and they should preferable be kept >separate. > >(1) of offering to help through our workshop etc, and applying to be in the >WG for preparing the main session. > >(2) making sure the evaluation is done properly > >We should mention only the first one in this case which directly relates to >IGF program. > >The second one was in my mind for some time when I picked up somewhere that >outside expert evaluation, and possibly a pro bono one, might be under >consideration. In any case I wanted IGC's position on this, and since the >issue was opened up by some emails, I introduced it. > >I think we should go by the existing text as amended by Adam, and consult >within the group on the evaluation process separately. > > >The corresponding text for IGC's consideration stands as > >> "it is important that a review and evaluation of >> the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an >> inclusive and transparent consultative process >> involving all stakeholders" > >Thanks. Parminder > >I am also putting the full text of the statement that is being proposed, for >which inputs will be taken for another 6 hours or so, and then it will be >piut for consensus process for 48 hours. >____________ > >Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper > >(1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter >sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core >theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a >central theme of the IGF process. > > >(2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this >session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main >session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the >continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, >within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >Membership in this regard." > >It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and >be conducted as an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving >all stakeholders. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The >role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the >same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > and we would >be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing >of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in >the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in >collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work >with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the >process of review and evaluation of the IGF. It is important that a review >and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an >inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. > >(3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up >the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been >very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and >some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing >the main session workshops? > >The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more >transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured >that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal >opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session >workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) > >(4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as >a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is >not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the >funding support available for participation of civil society from >developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too >late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that >immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. > > >Thank you, > >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 08:40:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:40:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <48A184B6.2F81A305@ix.netcom.com> Lisa et., al., I also agree with Jaco in principal, as well as with you. Your right that getting national government and NGO's up to snuff, and international organizations/NGO is clearly needed and currently not sufficient. But all this has little to do with a formal Internet "Bill of Rights" as a legal document codified constitutionally and/or by treaty. This was why I quirried so specifically, so as to insure what such an effort is all about, and to hopefully recognize that although such a Internet "Bill of Right" is, or may be greatly needed, and is in my opinion, that one recognizes the steep hill(s) to climb such an effort is, and the determination for years if not decades such climbing will likely require, not to mention the financial cost to be successful. I know there is the 2007 Telecommunications Act, which is to replace or amend the 1996 Telecommunications act, both of which I have been involved in drafting small parts of, that is underway, but going is slow, and resistance in some areas by commercial interests is significant. There is also a seperate by dove tailed effort in the US House commerce committee to produce legislation providing for additional security and privacy for individuals, in the wakd of a host of security breeches and recent Google/YouTube/Gmail/ect. privacy exposiers. For instance see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102270_pf.html and http://blog.studentsforafreetibet.org/2008/08/10/the-ioc-projects-censorship-on-nyc-projection-video/#more-1544 http://flickr.com/photos/10967888 at N08/2751035561/sizes/o/ Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging issues concerning internet communications. I agree that constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the international rights system stems from the moral obligations it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always need legal enforcement. > > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance institution that would be responsible for monitoring governance policy and processes and assessing whether they uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone know if there was any more work done on that front? > > Many thanks, > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sent: 12 August 2008 04:29 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > Jaco and all, > > My remarks, response and thoughts interspersed below Jaco's. > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > Dear Jeffrey, please read my answer to your email below.... > > > > > > > > > > Well there are a few other courts to go through before one > > even gets a chance to have ones case heard before the > > supreme > > Court in the US. > > > > Agree. > > The bottom line is to have this new right added as a new fundamental > > right in the Constitution. This will have implications not just for > > other Courts, but also for many Government offices, including the > > FCC. > > > > Ok, but you realize that in the US anyway, the Constitution has > > not been amended in quite some time. Adding additional rights > > as they apply to the US "Bill of Rights" a US founding document, > > might be a better way to go. Although I don't believe that the > > US "Bill of Rights" has ever been amended... So to do so is a very > > steep hill to climb and will likely take years if not decades. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not enforcement in any event. That's > > adjudication. Ergo you need a civics lesson or a refresher > > course. > > > > I am always ready to learn more! ;-) > > > > Same here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Civil rights cases of course are heard by the US Supreme > > Court, > > but not all are heard. Those that are not, have usually > > been heard > > in lower courts and the US Supreme Court has in these > > instances > > either decided that the petition of appeal is not sufficient > > to be > > heard, or already agree with the lower courts ruling. > > > > Agree. > > > > > > > > So with the sparse information you and Lisa have kindly > > provided, regarding a Internet Bill of Rights, seek to amend > > > > such rights already provided in the existing US Bill or > > Rights? > > > > Can you please be kind to write this question again?. I want to be > > sure that I understand the question before answering it. > > > > Does the Internet "Bill of Rights" being proposed seek to > > supplement/amend any other countries equivelent? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that correct? Further, what about such rights in other > > countries? > > > > Ideally, every country should include this new right in the > > Constitution. In Costa Rica, he Congress is studying to include this > > new fundamental right in the Constitution. In Germany, one of the > > countries more advanced in the world in legal developments, the > > Constitutional Court (Supreme Court) already added this new > > fundamental right, a few months ago. > > > > Well Costa Rica isn't exactly a first world country with a stable > > political atmosphere. Germany has gone a long ways in expanding > > users Internet rights and protections, as well has regressed on the > > norm for same. So 2 countries does not a global consensus make, > > but it's a tiny start! >:) > > > > > > Whom would enforce those? > > > > Each country has its own systems to enforce human/fundamental rights. > > It goes in many levels, as you wrote before (several types of Courts, > > and even Government). > > > > Yes I am fully aware as I have lived in three countries in my > > lifetime > > so far. Most have very little enforcment of Civil rights of any sort > > that is substancial. Those that do, the individual cost is > > prohibitive > > to the average user/stakeholder to get enforced. > > > > > > > > > > > > The newly formed civil rights division > > of the International House of Justice perhaps? > > > > Of course they can help, but most of the work will be in the National > > Courts. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > How would such > > new rights be so recognized by such an august body without > > nearly > > every country's legal structure amended appropriately? > > > > Agree. First the country legal structure has to change. > > > > Ok. I hope you realize I doubt that I will live longe enough > > before enough countries achieve this very lofty goal. Very steep > > hill here. Just being realistic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And than > > yet again, how and who would be the enforcer in > > multi-jurisdictional > > cases? > > > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > > > Well I guess than we can not count on Russia or China, and not > > likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria. > > > > > > > > > > > > How would any ruling be upheld/enforced accordingly? > > > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > > > Ok, so again same as just above, I guess than we can not count > > on Russia or China, and not likely Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syeria, > > at least not in my life time. > > > > And whom would be mandated to enforce such a ruling? > > Interpol > > perhaps? < shrug > > > > > Same as today with other fundamental rights. > > > > Ok so very little enforcment in most countries, no third world > > countries, and no purely nationalistic countries. And very few > > middle income to lower income users/stakeholders can > > reasonably expect in the near term, any significant enforcment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your time Jeffrey!, > > > > Welcome! And thank you for your frank and prompt responses... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > Constitutional Courts. In USA for example, the US Supreme > > Court. > > > > > > On 8/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams > > wrote: > > > > Jaco, Lisa and all, > > > > > > > > I fully support a comprehensive Internet Bill of > > Rights. What > > > > I always come back to though, is if broadly adopted, > > whom would > > > > enforce them for all? The UN? ICANN?, the ITU?, US > > Congress, > > > > or some other governmental entity? > > > > > > > > Jaco Aizenman wrote: > > > > > > > >> Dear Lisa, > > > >> > > > >> Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive > > and I support. > > > >> Let me know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa > > Rica. > > > >> > > > >> Please also note that a new virtual personality > > fundamental right is > > > >> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE > > initiative. Of > > > >> course it has to be done in the right way.... > > > >> > > > >> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear > > and good virtual > > > >> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will > > be much easier > > > >> to implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > > >> > > > >> Don� t you like or support the first, worldwide, > > "internet right", > > > >> made a few months ago by the German Constitutional > > Court?. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks a lot for your time. > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> > > > >> Jaco > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa > > > >> Horner wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Max and all > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm > > equally > > > >> interested in your work and in exploring > > potentials for > > > >> collaboration. Maybe we could start a 'research > > ideas' and > > > >> 'research in progress' page on the bill of rights > > wiki? > > > >> > > > >> Apologies in advance for the length of this email > > - those > > > >> who aren't interested can delete email or go into > > skim-read > > > >> mode now! > > > >> > > > >> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing > > Freedom > > > >> of Expression Project. I think I've mentioned > > before that > > > >> we're working with 6 key partner organizations in > > different > > > >> countries to develop policy principles that, if > > adhered to, > > > >> would shape a global communications environment > > that would > > > >> support human rights and a 'public interest' > > communications > > > >> environment. They address issues spanning > > infrastructure, > > > >> code and content. The latest draft of the > > principles is > > > >> available and open for comment at > > > >> > > > >> > > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > > > >> > > > >> The principles and values that they express are > > purposefully > > > >> broad so that they can be tailored to specific > > contexts. > > > >> The idea is for them to provide an overarching > > framework for > > > >> policy discussion and advocacy at different > > scales. For > > > >> example, our project partners are currently > > working to > > > >> elaborate what they might mean in different > > country > > > >> contexts, and this in turn will provide the > > foundations for > > > >> policy work. A major aim is to identify spaces > > where > > > >> different stakeholders can agree that they share > > certain > > > >> values and principles, and work to shape policy > > accordingly. > > > >> > > > >> We have been working to base all of our work so > > far in > > > >> international human rights standards, in > > particular freedom > > > >> of expression, the right to culture and the right > > to > > > >> participation in government. We've taken an > > expansive > > > >> definition of freedom of expression that many (but > > not all) > > > >> human rights institutions and lawyers around the > > world > > > >> take. This includes positive dimensions of > > freedom of > > > >> expression, including the notion that governments > > are > > > >> responsible for putting the necessary > > > >> structures/infrastructures in place for the right > > to be > > > >> realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > > believe that we > > > >> need to be advocating for new rights such as the > > right to > > > >> the internet or to communication. The sentiments > > and > > > >> demands expressed by these 'new' rights are > > already > > > >> contained within the human rights system. In my > > opinion, > > > >> our energy should be focused on further developing > > and > > > >> upholding what we have already, for example, > > further > > > >> embedding expansive definitions of freedom of > > expression in > > > >> rights and policy institutions. And, as Anriette > > and Milton > > > >> importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > > > >> understanding about what international rights > > standards and > > > >> compliance with them actually means in practice. > > > >> > > > >> The research that I referred to before is intended > > to > > > >> contribute to this effort, illustrating how an > > expansive > > > >> definition of freedom of expression is being > > supported in > > > >> contemporary legal and philosophical thought and > > case law, > > > >> and identifying areas where further work needs to > > be done. > > > >> It is taking our policy principles framework as a > > starting > > > >> point, ensuring that it is firmly rooted in the > > > >> international human rights system. In this way, > > if the > > > >> framework was used as a basis for policy > > discussion, human > > > >> rights standards would effectively be > > 'mainstreamed' within > > > >> the discussions. > > > >> > > > >> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that > > these > > > >> aren't IG issues, we hope that we're making a > > positive > > > >> contribution towards ensuring that the 'shared > > norms and > > > >> principles that shape the use and evolution of the > > internet' > > > >> are rooted in human rights standards. These are > > the most > > > >> widely accepted and acknowledged ethical standards > > in the > > > >> world, which (in reference to earlier > > conversations) is why > > > >> it makes sense to us to work with them and build > > on them, > > > >> rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > > >> > > > >> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to > > hear > > > >> anybody's thoughts on the work we're doing, and > > am keen to > > > >> explore opportunities to collaborate on further > > research on > > > >> any of these issues. > > > >> > > > >> Many thanks, > > > >> > > > >> Lisa > > > >> > > > >> From:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org > > > >> [mailto:bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] On > > Behalf Of > > > >> Max Senges > > > >> Sent: 06 August 2008 17:36 > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette > > Esterhuysen; > > > >> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > > > >> Subject: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > >> dear lisa and all > > > >> > > > >> Lisa wrote: > > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > > policy > > > >> principles based > > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > > interoperability, > > > >> universal > > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > > the > > > >> international human > > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > > interesting > > > >> insights... > > > >> > > > >> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's > > Center > > > >> for Internet and Society has offered to > > collaborate by > > > >> contributing research and i agreed to frame > > research > > > >> opportunities/themes for student projects to be > > taken up in > > > >> the fall. > > > >> > > > >> It would be great to team up or at least be aware > > of all the > > > >> other research undertaken to better understand a > > Rights > > > >> based approach to IG. > > > >> > > > >> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global > > Partners > > > >> research? > > > >> > > > >> Everybody else doing research work in this area is > > very much > > > >> invited to get in touch so we can ensure we > > complement, > > > >> share and avoid duplication > > > >> > > > >> best > > > >> maxOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette > > Esterhuysen > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hallo all > > > >> > > > >> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights > > Commission > > > >> is the appropriate > > > >> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal > > with hate > > > >> speech issues quite often. > > > >> > > > >> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent > > work. > > > >> Here is their URL > > > >> > > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > > > > >> > > > >> Draft hate speech legislation has been before > > parlaiment a > > > >> few times here in South > > > >> Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I > > remember > > > >> correctly the draft bill was badly > > > >> not well conceived and very controversial. > > > >> > > > >> I certainly think that making a formal complaint > > to the HRC > > > >> (human rights > > > >> commission) would the way to start if the > > intension is to > > > >> create public awareness of > > > >> the issue. > > > >> > > > >> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... > > which is > > > >> less desirable. Personally, Rui, I > > > >> would just ignore it. > > > >> > > > >> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the > > relationship > > > >> between rights and internet > > > >> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground > > since > > > >> WSIS. As you say there is a > > > >> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights > > rhetoric and to > > > >> work out what the > > > >> implementable rights-based public policy > > principles are that > > > >> we can work with on > > > >> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for > > example > > > >> net-neutrality. APC tries to adopt > > > >> this approach in our access work. > > > >> > > > >> I also think that the mainstream human rights > > movement has > > > >> not engaged this terrain > > > >> enough, altough there are exceptions. > > > >> > > > >> Anriette > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 > > +0100 > > > >> From: "Lisa Horner" > > > >> > > > >> To: > > , > > > >> "Rui Correia" > > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking > > down a site > > > >> [was: beijing ticket scam] > > > >> Send reply to: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa > > > >> Horner" > > >> partners.co.uk> > > > >> > > > >> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth > > filing a > > > >> complaint with the > > > >> > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA > > bill of > > > >> rights states > > > >> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to > > "advocacy of > > > >> hatred that > > > >> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, > > and that > > > >> constitutes > > > >> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by > > any other > > > >> legislation > > > >> > in SA? > > > >> > > > > >> > So many of our discussions around internet > > governance > > > >> issues can be > > > >> > approached from a rights perspective, but human > > rights > > > >> lawyers and > > > >> > institutions are usually absent from the > > debate. Human > > > >> rights and > > > >> > their associated tools and mechanisms are > > arguably one of > > > >> the only > > > >> > global governance institutions that is > > 'thickening' in the > > > >> current age > > > >> > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches > > also have an > > > >> inbuilt > > > >> > framework for balancing out tensions between > > different > > > >> rights and > > > >> > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot > > of work to > > > >> be done in > > > >> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that > > they're capable > > > >> of dealing > > > >> > with new issues, including those relating to > > freedom of > > > >> expression and > > > >> > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly > > with national > > > >> human > > > >> > rights institutions is one way of starting that > > process? > > > >> > > > > >> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment > > that many > > > >> new campaigns > > > >> > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I > > think that > > > >> they should > > > >> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm > > understanding of, > > > >> existing human > > > >> > rights institutions, both formal and informal > > and at all > > > >> scales. > > > >> > We've just commissioned some research into how > > policy > > > >> principles based > > > >> > around notions such as net neutrality, > > interoperability, > > > >> universal > > > >> > access and content diversity can be rooted in > > the > > > >> international human > > > >> > rights system which will hopefully yield some > > interesting > > > >> insights... > > > >> > > > > >> > Any thoughts? > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Lisa > > > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > > > >> Association for Progressive Communications > > > >> anriette at apc.org > > > >> http://www.apc.org > > > >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > > > >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > > > >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > > >> > > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > >> > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > > list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who > > points out > > > >> how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of > > deeds > > > >> could have done better. The credit belongs to the > > man who is > > > >> actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > > dust and > > > >> sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs > > and comes > > > >> short again and again; who knows the great > > enthusiasms, the > > > >> great devotions and spends himself in a worthy > > cause; ... so > > > >> that his place shall never be with those cold and > > timid > > > >> souls who know neither victory or defeat." > > > >> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > > > >> (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >> 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 > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Bill-of-Rights mailing list > > > >> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > > > >> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > > >> Costa Rica > > > >> > > > >> What is an i-name? > > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Jaco Aizenman L. > > > >> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > > >> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > > >> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > > >> Costa Rica > > > >> > > > >> What is an i-name? > > > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > >> > > > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > > members/stakeholders strong!) > > > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not > > with what is > > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > > burden, B; > > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L > > multiplied by > > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > > 1947] > > > > > > =============================================================== > > > > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > > security IDNS. > > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > > Costa Rica > > > > > > What is an i-name? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > > members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > > what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > > burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > > by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > > 1947] > > ===== > > ========================================================= > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > > security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jaco Aizenman L. > > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > > Costa Rica > > > > What is an i-name? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From annette at nnm-ev.de Wed Aug 13 06:56:23 2008 From: annette at nnm-ev.de (annette at nnm-ev.de) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:56:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0808121629r43c1477ag3b8c2c84244766d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <48a1af49.1a36720a.0c96.fffff14e@mx.google.com> <48A0DEC0.763C0A3D@ix.netcom.com> <4d976d8e0808121629r43c1477ag3b8c2c84244766d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1577.87.159.142.76.1218624983.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> hi max, it would be great if that site offered some links especially the conferences and declarations mentioned in the last paragraph: >The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a specific IGF main agenda item and long-term goal, has already received a significant degree of wide spread interest and support. This has included an appeal by illustrious people at the second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a dedicated international conference in Rome with attendees from over 70 countries, and an official declaration by the governments of Italy and Brazil." Can you arrange that - or be so kind to tell us via email the links (to Rom and government declaration). best greetings annette > hi jeffrey - here you go > http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf- > max > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > > wrote: > >> Ginger and all, >> >> I cannot at this time endorse as the links I have been able to >> find do not provide for the actual document to review. Also >> many of our members have expressed the same, yet have >> great interest. Can someone point me to the actual "Bill of >> Rights" version with all amendments please? >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> > Yes! >> > >> > -----Mensaje original----- >> > De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> > Enviado el: Martes, 12 de Agosto de 2008 04:53 a.m. >> > Para: Governance; Singh, Parminder >> > Asunto: Re: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visiblity of 'rights >> > >> > Yes >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > On 8/12/08 9:34 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >> > >> > > Yes. >> > > >> > > It's an important letter. >> > > >> > > Please endorse. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Adam >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Hi All >> > >> >> > >> A little while ago, on this list, we discussed >> > >> about writing to the MAG expressing our concern >> > >> on dilution of Œrights¹ issues¹ in the IGF >> > >> agenda and program, and there was general >> > >> support that such a letter should be sent. The >> > >> Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights has >> > >> prepared such a letter that they plan to send to >> > >> the MAG on the 15th August, so that its content >> > >> can be included in the official consultation >> > >> document for September MAG consultation.. >> > >> >> > >> I put this letter for IGC¹s consideration and possible >> endorsement. >> > >> >> > >> The letter can be seen at >> > >> >> > < >> http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?rights_as_core_ >> > t >> > >> >> > heme_of_the_igf> >> http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi? >> > r >> > >> ights_as_core_theme_of_the_igf >> > >> , and the final text is also given below this >> > >> email >> > >> >> > >> Two things are important to note in this respect. >> > >> >> > >> (1) The letter is primarily been prepared, and >> > >> is Œowned¹, by the dynamic coalition, and at >> > >> this stage, with only three days to go for the >> > >> submission deadline of the 15th, we can only >> > >> accept to endorse it or not endorse it in the >> > >> shape that it is. It will not be possible to >> > >> take in suggestions for any changes to the text >> > >> as a condition for endorsement. >> > >> >> > >> (2) The fact that we are endorsing a letter >> > >> prepared by the dynamic coalition, and that this >> > >> is not directly an IGC letter, also means that >> > >> in endorsing we need not be agreeing with each >> > >> and every word of it. The option, as I said, is >> > >> to broadly endorse such a letter or not to do >> > >> so. >> > >> >> > >> I am putting this up for rough consensus. Please >> > >> only indicate whether you do accept IGC >> > >> endorsing the letter or not. A direct Œyes¹ or >> > >> Œno¹ reply is required. While substantiating >> > >> arguments may be stated, conditional acceptance >> > >> will not be registered. >> > >> >> > >> Reponses to this may be sent within the next 48 >> > >> hours. At close of 48 hours from now the >> > >> co-coordinators will judge whether a rough >> > >> consensus on endorsing the letter is obtained or >> > >> not, and take action accordingly. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks >> > >> >> > >> Parminder >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Rights as core theme of the IGF >> > >> >> > >> Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, >> > >> >> > >> The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of >> > >> Rights respectfully requests that the issue of >> > >> rights and the internet is made a core agenda >> > >> topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes >> > >> that, through the "openness" theme, rights have >> > >> been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and >> > >> is concerned that this topic appears to have >> > >> been pushed down the draft agenda for this >> > >> year's IGF in Hyderabad. >> > >> We are greatly concerned by the significant >> > >> reduction of emphasis on "openness" and >> > >> "diversity" in the current agenda for Hyderabad. >> > >> In particular, "openness and privacy" are only >> > >> mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general >> > >> "Promoting Cyber-security and Trust" main theme. >> > >> Rather than promoting positive discussion about >> > >> how to expand the opportunities that the >> > >> internet offers for realizing our fundamental >> > >> rights and freedoms as enshrined in >> > >> international law, the title of the main >> > >> security theme plays on negativity and fear of >> > >> the internet. We are concerned that the sessions >> > >> will focus on security measures, without >> > >> adequate discussion of how to ensure that these >> > >> do not erode the capacity of the internet to >> > >> support and advance human rights, for example to >> > >> expression, culture, privacy and development. >> > >> Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic >> > >> Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF >> > >> participants are also concerned with the limited >> > >> consideration of rights on the program, we >> > >> respectfully ask the Secretariat and >> > >> Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider >> > >> the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the >> > >> Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to >> > >> work towards incorporating ŒRights and the >> > >> Internet¹ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an >> > >> overarching theme. >> > >> We recognize that development of the draft >> > >> agenda is well underway, but feel that it would >> > >> still be possible to adapt the agenda without >> > >> undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger >> > >> process, by reorienting the sub-theme main >> > >> session "Fostering Security, Privacy and >> > >> Openness" to focus on rights. The issue of >> > >> security would be better addressed in the >> > >> partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the >> > >> issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session >> > >> could then bring these two strands together. >> > >> Another possibility to give rights a more >> > >> prominent stance would be to change the title of >> > >> the main theme, "Promoting Cyber-security and >> > >> Trust" to, "Balancing Security and Trust with >> > >> Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)". >> > >> As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report >> > >> submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the >> > >> coalition would like to offer its support in >> > >> helping to shape such a session in partnership >> > >> with the workshop organisers who have opted to >> > >> merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in >> > >> a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory >> > >> Group in order to ensure that rights receive >> > >> adequate attention at the IGF. >> > >> We thank you for your consideration and await your response. Kind >> regards, >> > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> > >> >> > >> About the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition >> > >> >> > >> The Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition is >> > >> acting as an umbrella coalition for all >> > >> individuals and groups who are concerned with >> > >> rights issues and internet governance. The >> > >> internet has unleashed a raft of opportunities >> > >> to protect and expand our human rights as >> > >> protected by international law, and offers >> > >> significant new possibilities for development >> > >> and empowerment. However, the internet also >> > >> presents us with serious challenges, including >> > >> how to balance the social goods that stem from >> > >> the openness of the internet with the need for >> > >> security, and how to ensure that the benefits >> > >> that the internet brings are shared by all. The >> > >> Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights >> > >> is working to address these issues, with a view >> > >> to ensuring that human rights are integral to >> > >> internet governance processes and decisions. >> > >> Our membership is diverse in terms of >> > >> stakeholders, geography and view points. For >> > >> example, some people in the coalition are >> > >> concerned with ensuring that our rights our >> > >> protected when we use the internet, some are >> > >> working to ensure that rights underpin the norms >> > >> that guide internet governance, and others are >> > >> seeking to establish rights to the internet so >> > >> that all have access to the benefits and >> > >> opportunities it supports. Yet all of our >> > >> members are keen to see a greater focus on >> > >> rights in the main agenda of the IGF so that >> > >> these important issues can be given the >> > >> attention that they deserve. >> > >> The topic of the "Internet Bill of Rights", as a >> > >> specific IGF main agenda item and long-term >> > >> goal, has already received a significant degree >> > >> of wide spread interest and support. This has >> > >> included an appeal by illustrious people at the >> > >> second WSIS in Tunis, massive participation in >> > >> the Coalition's workshops in Athens and Rio, a >> > >> dedicated international conference in Rome with >> > >> attendees from over 70 countries, and an >> > >> official declaration by the governments of Italy >> > >> and Brazil. We also note that organizations such >> > >> as the Council of Europe and the Association for >> > >> Progressive Communications have made similar >> > >> requests for a stronger focus on rights at the >> > >> IGF. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> Abraham Lincoln >> >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> ==============================================================> >> Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data >> security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the > strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. > The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face > is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who > errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, > the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that > his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know > neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 09:09:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:09:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme References: <20080813101438.C55D2A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A18B74.61F3E05F@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Let me get something clear here. Our members in accordance with nearly 12 years of ongoing experience and experiences, have a few non-negotiable "Rights" for lack of a better term, that must be clearly and fully articulated or we shall not support any effort along similar grounds. They are as follows: - All and any stakeholders regardless of class, country of origin or residence, age, sexual orientation, or condition of servitude, must have the indivisible and unchallangable right to their personal privacy and safety in all respects of IT involvement without equivocation or future amendment or any extraneous future conditions and/or world events. - The use of any data regarding any individual's use or interaction using telecommunications or Internet activity, no matter how trivial, is seeded in the individual and it is his/her right, without equivocation or future amendment or any extraneous future conditions and/or world events, as what can be done or how such data can be used, stored, or shared and under the conditions only as that individual may allow. - That any commercially related transaction data that may be collected be available for review and amendment to the individuals or organizations commercial or non-commercial without fee or cost upon request within a reasonable amount of time, and not to exceed 15 working days. That correction, amendment, or deletion of this or any commercially or medically related data be the sole property of the individual or organization, commercial or non-commercial, without the possibility of amendment of any sort in perpetuity, and is transferable to surviving relatives or designated individual or organization in trust, as that individual may direct, or that commercial non-commercial may direct in perpetuity. Parminder wrote: > Adam > > > I think you are opening up a simple comment in > > ways that need too much discussion. > > > > Parminder: you are getting into too much detail. > > The impact of the statement we need to make > > "begin the review, we are offering to help" is > > being lost. > > I agree there two different issues and they should preferable be kept > separate. > > (1) of offering to help through our workshop etc, and applying to be in the > WG for preparing the main session. > > (2) making sure the evaluation is done properly > > We should mention only the first one in this case which directly relates to > IGF program. > > The second one was in my mind for some time when I picked up somewhere that > outside expert evaluation, and possibly a pro bono one, might be under > consideration. In any case I wanted IGC's position on this, and since the > issue was opened up by some emails, I introduced it. > > I think we should go by the existing text as amended by Adam, and consult > within the group on the evaluation process separately. > > The corresponding text for IGC's consideration stands as > > > "it is important that a review and evaluation of > > the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > > inclusive and transparent consultative process > > involving all stakeholders" > > Thanks. Parminder > > I am also putting the full text of the statement that is being proposed, for > which inputs will be taken for another 6 hours or so, and then it will be > piut for consensus process for 48 hours. > ____________ > > Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter > sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a > central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, > within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > Membership in this regard." > > It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and > be conducted as an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving > all stakeholders. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The > role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the > same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > and we would > be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing > of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in > the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in > collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work > with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the > process of review and evaluation of the IGF. It is important that a review > and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up > the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been > very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and > some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced > representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing > the main session workshops? > > The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more > transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured > that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal > opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session > workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) > > (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as > a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is > not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the > funding support available for participation of civil society from > developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too > late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that > immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. > > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 13 09:23:09 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:23:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: In message <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3 at DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>, at 11:02:53 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Lisa Horner writes >There's still discussion about whether "Bill of rights" is the right name for the coalition. This has implications of a "negotiated text" which is one of the 'outcomes' that I thought the IGF was constitutionally opposed to. (Not to criticise the objective, but is the IGF the right venue). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 13 09:29:12 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:29:12 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C at ensms02.iris.se>, at 09:59:12 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes >Right now the World Blind Union have proposed that credit cards should >be standardised in a way that blind people could differ the sides of >them and then be able to independent use them in ATM-machines etc Over the last 30 years I've had dozens of credit card accounts, and only one actual card that didn't have embossed digits on it. In fact, the embossing was required by the earlier "carbon paper" credit card forms, in order for a merchant to take the card details quickly, and the non-embossed card I have was deliberately different because it's for a strange account that you can't use in retail. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 10:47:29 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:47:29 -0700 Subject: FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Message-ID: <00f701c8fd53$88484650$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Since only a couple of people seem to have read this below when I first sent it out I'm taking the liberty of resending it... I don't agree with those who are indicating that an "evaulation" is the right way to go here... In fact given what I know about evaluation and evaluation contracting in the UN system I would drop the terminology of "evaluation" altogether since once it is termed that way and given over to the UN to administer there are a range of criteria, standards, contracting procedures, and operational processes that move it out of anyone (outside the system)'s direct control or capacity to influence. I would rather use the terminology of "consultative assessment (or review) with independent support" or some such. Please see my original note copied below for a more extensive argument concerning this... MG --------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: August 7, 2008 2:11 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Jeanette Hofmann' Subject: RE: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Based on fairly extensive experience with "evaluation" over many years including in the context of the UN system I would observe that as is often the case there is an attempt here to shift what is essentially a "political" decision (continuation of the IGF) into the technical sphere (i.e. evaluation as the "objective determination of the achievement of a pre-defined set of (program) goals/objectives"). The problem with doing this is that it generally puts the "political" onus on the evaluator/evaluation and thus on the process of determination of evaluation criteria and the selection/personality/biases of the evaluator. A tough position for the evaluator for sure but also very tricky in terms of ensuring that one's (e.g. IGC's) specific interests are adequately represented in the process and the outcome. On the other hand it is often very useful to have a qualified third party draw up the logic models, put the relevant information together, interview the various stakeholders and so on. Another way of proceeding, and one perhaps more in keeping with the spirit of the IGF and multistakeholderism would be that the evaluation be seen as a multistakeholder "process" rather than the "product"/output of a specific evaluator. The "evaluator" would thus be chosen to inform and support the evaluation process with the outcome of this process being a recommendation from the participants in the process to the SG rather than as being simply the outcome of the evaluator's internal analyses. MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: August 6, 2008 12:52 AM To: Governance Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Hi everyone, the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this idea, others expressed reservations. In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for the evaluation of the IGF. jeanette Dear colleagues, In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under this agenda item. At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into action. A few elements are given: The actors: -The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum") - Forum participants (they are to be consulted) - UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on recommendations by the Secretary-General The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation". Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010 at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting. The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual General Assembly which meets each year between September and December. Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The elements for the Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to be ready by late 2009. Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with Forum participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the 2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for these "formal consultations with Forum participants." This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their interpretation. The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be helpful. In any case, we should start "examining the desirability of the continuation of the Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at the latest. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 13 13:24:01 2008 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:24:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Rio survey on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: FYI, We have just posted the completed IGF Rio Internet governance survey report online at www.imaginingtheinternet.org. The content posted includes a number of site pages. Of special interest are the qualitative elaborations we received on several questions; these allow you to "hear" respondents' "voices" as they note their concerns. The headline we placed on the news release says that Access and the Bill of Rights are two items that carry the most common support as themes. The majority also said it is best to have as little regulation as possible and that policy will always remain a step behind due to the accelerating pace of technological change. We hope this document might somehow serve to provide information of value. Best regards, Janna Anderson and Connie Book Imagining the Internet Elon University 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 13 14:37:41 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:37:41 +0900 Subject: FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] In-Reply-To: <00f701c8fd53$88484650$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <00f701c8fd53$88484650$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Michael, Interesting comments, but you are reading too much into the word evaluation and have forgotten that the IGF is not part of the UN. It won't be given over to the UN, the Tunis Agenda para 76 gives us an outline of the process: "We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." Given what we know about how the IGF's operated to date, then very likely this review/evaluation will be part of the usual IGF process of open consultations, rolling documents etc, most likely leading to some "formal consultation with Forum participants" (some seem to think this will be a session at a future annual IGF, perhaps 2009) which will "make recommendations to the UN Membership", i.e. the GA. And as the email Jeanette forwarded last week explains, the GA's decisions are prepared by appropriate subsidiary bodies, in the case of WSIS/IGF that's CSTD and ECOSOC. Best I understand, any review/evaluation will be undertaken by the IGF (an external entity might be used to help, a good idea I think if it has competency, is trustworthy, etc) and the time the UN gets formally involved is in receiving the forum's recommendations. Hope this helps. There's nothing to fear. Adam >Since only a couple of people seem to have read this below when I first sent >it out I'm taking the liberty of resending it... > >I don't agree with those who are indicating that an "evaulation" is the >right way to go here... In fact given what I know about evaluation and >evaluation contracting in the UN system I would drop the terminology of >"evaluation" altogether since once it is termed that way and given over to >the UN to administer there are a range of criteria, standards, contracting >procedures, and operational processes that move it out of anyone (outside >the system)'s direct control or capacity to influence. > >I would rather use the terminology of "consultative assessment (or review) >with independent support" or some such. > >Please see my original note copied below for a more extensive argument >concerning this... > >MG > >--------------------- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >Sent: August 7, 2008 2:11 PM >To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Jeanette Hofmann' >Subject: RE: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] > >Based on fairly extensive experience with "evaluation" over many years >including in the context of the UN system I would observe that as is often >the case there is an attempt here to shift what is essentially a "political" >decision (continuation of the IGF) into the technical sphere (i.e. >evaluation as the "objective determination of the achievement of a >pre-defined set of (program) goals/objectives"). > >The problem with doing this is that it generally puts the "political" onus >on the evaluator/evaluation and thus on the process of determination of >evaluation criteria and the selection/personality/biases of the evaluator. > >A tough position for the evaluator for sure but also very tricky in terms of >ensuring that one's (e.g. IGC's) specific interests are adequately >represented in the process and the outcome. > >On the other hand it is often very useful to have a qualified third party >draw up the logic models, put the relevant information together, interview >the various stakeholders and so on. > >Another way of proceeding, and one perhaps more in keeping with the spirit >of the IGF and multistakeholderism would be that the evaluation be seen as a >multistakeholder "process" rather than the "product"/output of a specific >evaluator. > >The "evaluator" would thus be chosen to inform and support the evaluation >process with the outcome of this process being a recommendation from the >participants in the process to the SG rather than as being simply the >outcome of the evaluator's internal analyses. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >Sent: August 6, 2008 12:52 AM >To: Governance >Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] > > > >Hi everyone, > >the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming >evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is >also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this >idea, others expressed reservations. > >In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of >things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for >the evaluation of the IGF. >jeanette > > >Dear colleagues, > >In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the draft >TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, we will put >the review process in general terms on the agenda for the September >consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under this agenda >item. > >At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review process. >Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. > >While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is >nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the >paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into action. > >A few elements are given: > >The actors: > >-The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability of >the continuation of the Forum") > >- Forum participants (they are to be consulted) > >- UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on >recommendations by the Secretary-General > >The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation". Presumably, >this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the first meeting of >the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to take place no later >than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows for the review to take >place earlier. A review process should leave the door open and should not >prejudge a decision in either way. Should it be delayed until the last >moment, it would have a negative impact on the IGF. A decision in this >regard should be taken by the end of 2010 at the latest, should there be a >general desire for a 2011 meeting. > >The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual General >Assembly which meets each year between September and December. Decisions by >the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary >bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take a >decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to submit his >recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS Follow-up to the >CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The elements for the >Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to be ready by late 2009. > >Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with Forum >participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the regular >consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this para relates >to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far broader community >than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva meetings. Should this be the >general reading of this para, then the 2009 meeting in Egypt will need to >include a slot in the programme for these "formal consultations with Forum >participants." > >This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I will >also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their interpretation. > >The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum >participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an external >input into this process in form of an evaluation could be helpful. In any >case, we should start "examining the desirability of the continuation of the >Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at the latest. > >Best regards >Markus > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 15:33:47 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:33:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: References: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA21@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I'm willing to accept Adam's reasonable amendment. Would prefer that the word "evaluation" be struck from it but unless many others concur it's not a show-stopper for me. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > > "it is important that a review and evaluation of > the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process > involving all stakeholders" > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 15:47:49 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:47:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > >There's still discussion about whether "Bill of rights" is > the right name for the coalition. > > This has implications of a "negotiated text" which is one of the > 'outcomes' that I thought the IGF was constitutionally opposed to. Roland the Bill o' Rights is a Dynamic Coalition within the IGF. Dynamic Coalitions, or DC's, can negotiate any texts they like. They can, in fact, all agree to wear black jumpsuits and funny hats or to wear medieval armor and say "nee!" in unison. Indeed, aside from DCs any grouping of actors within the IGF -- workshops, coffee klatsches, or carpools -- can sit down and negotiate any agreement among themselves they like. What (most) people don't want is for the IGF qua IGF to negotiate texts. That's a different thing. Hope this clears up your concern. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 13 15:47:51 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:47:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA21@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080813042529.EBA6667814@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA21@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Then let's drop evaluation. Michael has related concerns. So point 2 would read: (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the same title at IGF, Hyderabad, and we would be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the process of review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF. It is important that a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. Parminder can correct me if I'm wrong (it's late). But I think this is all wordsmithing and "friendly amendments" and should not delay sending before the 15th. best, Adam At 3:33 PM -0400 8/13/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >I'm willing to accept Adam's reasonable amendment. Would prefer that the >word "evaluation" be struck from it but unless many others concur it's >not a show-stopper for me. > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org > > >> >> "it is important that a review and evaluation of >> the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an >> inclusive and transparent consultative process >> involving all stakeholders" >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 16:10:50 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:10:50 -0700 Subject: FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <019d01c8fd81$fb7d71d0$6501a8c0@michael78xnoln> Good to hear Adam, although from my experience when you put the terms UNSG and "evaluation" together things tend to be directed to either OIOS or to the JIU... And I would have thought that at least the first part of what you quoted rather reinforces my point rather than yours especially if the term "evaluation" is put in place of "examine the desirability of" as in the original message to which I responded. But the proof will be in the pudding (although fore-warned is fore-armed... Catch phrasedly yours, MG -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: August 13, 2008 11:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] Michael, Interesting comments, but you are reading too much into the word evaluation and have forgotten that the IGF is not part of the UN. It won't be given over to the UN, the Tunis Agenda para 76 gives us an outline of the process: "We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." Given what we know about how the IGF's operated to date, then very likely this review/evaluation will be part of the usual IGF process of open consultations, rolling documents etc, most likely leading to some "formal consultation with Forum participants" (some seem to think this will be a session at a future annual IGF, perhaps 2009) which will "make recommendations to the UN Membership", i.e. the GA. And as the email Jeanette forwarded last week explains, the GA's decisions are prepared by appropriate subsidiary bodies, in the case of WSIS/IGF that's CSTD and ECOSOC. Best I understand, any review/evaluation will be undertaken by the IGF (an external entity might be used to help, a good idea I think if it has competency, is trustworthy, etc) and the time the UN gets formally involved is in receiving the forum's recommendations. Hope this helps. There's nothing to fear. Adam >Since only a couple of people seem to have read this below when I first >sent it out I'm taking the liberty of resending it... > >I don't agree with those who are indicating that an "evaulation" is the >right way to go here... In fact given what I know about evaluation and >evaluation contracting in the UN system I would drop the terminology of >"evaluation" altogether since once it is termed that way and given over >to the UN to administer there are a range of criteria, standards, >contracting procedures, and operational processes that move it out of >anyone (outside the system)'s direct control or capacity to influence. > >I would rather use the terminology of "consultative assessment (or >review) with independent support" or some such. > >Please see my original note copied below for a more extensive argument >concerning this... > >MG > >--------------------- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >Sent: August 7, 2008 2:11 PM >To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Jeanette Hofmann' >Subject: RE: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] > >Based on fairly extensive experience with "evaluation" over many years >including in the context of the UN system I would observe that as is >often the case there is an attempt here to shift what is essentially a >"political" decision (continuation of the IGF) into the technical >sphere (i.e. evaluation as the "objective determination of the >achievement of a pre-defined set of (program) goals/objectives"). > >The problem with doing this is that it generally puts the "political" >onus on the evaluator/evaluation and thus on the process of >determination of evaluation criteria and the >selection/personality/biases of the evaluator. > >A tough position for the evaluator for sure but also very tricky in >terms of ensuring that one's (e.g. IGC's) specific interests are >adequately represented in the process and the outcome. > >On the other hand it is often very useful to have a qualified third >party draw up the logic models, put the relevant information together, >interview the various stakeholders and so on. > >Another way of proceeding, and one perhaps more in keeping with the >spirit of the IGF and multistakeholderism would be that the evaluation >be seen as a multistakeholder "process" rather than the >"product"/output of a specific evaluator. > >The "evaluator" would thus be chosen to inform and support the >evaluation process with the outcome of this process being a >recommendation from the participants in the process to the SG rather >than as being simply the outcome of the evaluator's internal analyses. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >Sent: August 6, 2008 12:52 AM >To: Governance >Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation] > > > >Hi everyone, > >the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming >evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is >also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this >idea, others expressed reservations. > >In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of >things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for >the evaluation of the IGF. jeanette > > >Dear colleagues, > >In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the >draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, >we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the >September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under >this agenda item. > >At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review >process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. > >While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is >nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the >paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into >action. > >A few elements are given: > >The actors: > >-The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability >of the continuation of the Forum") > >- Forum participants (they are to be consulted) > >- UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on >recommendations by the Secretary-General > >The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation". >Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the >first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to >take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows >for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the >door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it >be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on >the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010 >at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting. > >The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual >General Assembly which meets each year between September and December. >Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary >bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take >a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to >submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS >Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The >elements for the Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to >be ready by late 2009. > >Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with >Forum participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the >regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this >para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far >broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva >meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the >2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for >these "formal consultations with Forum participants." > >This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I >will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their >interpretation. > >The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum >participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an >external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be >helpful. In any case, we should start "examining the desirability of >the continuation of the Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at >the latest. > >Best regards >Markus > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 18:17:01 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:17:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Lisa: Some questions for you... > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already > in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels > from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge > is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're > capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging > issues concerning internet communications. How would you relate to the fact that a clearly defined right to privacy, articulated in both national laws and in international norms and instruments, is abrogated by the ICANN Whois obligation? Two prongs to this question. First, how and why do you think that happened? Second, why is there so much interest in general declarations of rights amogn civil society and so little interest and involvement in the actual ICANN processes that could affect how that right is translated into reality in the context of the Internet domain name system? > I agree that > constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but > that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice > concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights > (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being > in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the > international rights system stems from the moral obligations > it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always > need legal enforcement. This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. A secondary question: You say "we might not always need legal enforcement." This assumes that there actually _is_ legal enforcement of free expression rights in the international context. Here I plead ignorance but hope you can supply me with information. Can you provide an example of a case (or more than one case) in which UN institutions, acting on the basis of international human rights "law" or declarations, have put an end to an act of censorship or some other form of suppression of free speech in some country? If I am a blogger in China or Burma or the U.S. or Venezuela and my rights to free expression are violated can I petition the UN, or initiate litigation based on international rights and get that changed? > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human > rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance > institution that would be responsible for monitoring > governance policy and processes and assessing whether they > uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone > know if there was any more work done on that front? Of course not, if by "additional work" you mean a commitment was made by the UN system and its member states to invest resources in it and execute it. The problem is that there is no consensus among states on what rights exist and even if there was consensus in principle states would always disagree that they were violating them once so accused. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 13 19:20:09 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:20:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <48A36C29.7050607@cavebear.com> Lisa Horner wrote: > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already in place > to protect and interpret rights at various levels from the > sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge is to bring these > institutions up to standard ... It is not institutions that protect rights, but people who act and participate to protect rights. For example, ICANN is often pointed out as being deficient in the protection of privacy. Yet the public barely participates within ICANN. No matter what institutions and constitutions and bills of rights are created, they are worthless unless people participate either directly or via active organizations (most particularly organizations that they create themselves rather than those that are gifted upon them like some kind of large horse placed outside the gates of Troy.) --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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Aug 13 21:56:05 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research Message-ID: Bravo! Milton & Karl {Never thought I'd write those two names in the same sentence ;-) } >Milton: >This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human >rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not >the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the >willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. >Karl: >It is not institutions that protect rights, but people who act and >participate to protect rights. ... >No matter what institutions and constitutions and bills of rights >are created, they are worthless unless people participate either >directly or via active organizations. "The willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue" "people who act and participate to protect rights" "directly or via active organizations" Exactly. Netizens - Those who allie the Internet with a conviction of patriotic values for the good of earth and mankind. - That's My 2¢____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 23:50:36 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:50:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Well I guess this clears up a few things for me if true. If indeed that there is not going to be a unified agreed upon text/draft for a Internet "Bill of Rights", than how does the IGF expect to be taken seriously on such a notion? Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > > >There's still discussion about whether "Bill of rights" is > > the right name for the coalition. > > > > This has implications of a "negotiated text" which is one of the > > 'outcomes' that I thought the IGF was constitutionally opposed to. > > Roland > the Bill o' Rights is a Dynamic Coalition within the IGF. Dynamic > Coalitions, or DC's, can negotiate any texts they like. They can, in > fact, all agree to wear black jumpsuits and funny hats or to wear > medieval armor and say "nee!" in unison. Indeed, aside from DCs any > grouping of actors within the IGF -- workshops, coffee klatsches, or > carpools -- can sit down and negotiate any agreement among themselves > they like. > > What (most) people don't want is for the IGF qua IGF to negotiate texts. > That's a different thing. > > Hope this clears up your concern. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 12 23:58:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:58:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [A2k] Stop secret treaty threatening generics (ACTA)] Message-ID: <48A25BDF.13846DAD@ix.netcom.com> All, As an FYI. This is one reason why a specific text for a Internet "Bill of Rights" is needed. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] Stop secret treaty threatening generics (ACTA) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:35:04 -0400 From: Manon Ress To: a2k discuss list ,Enforce List , ip at tacd.org References: <48A33F56.6030407 at essentialinformation.org> Dear Friends, The United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand are now negotiating a new treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The text of what they are negotiating remains secret, but there's a lot to be worried about. An over-reaching treaty in this field could undermine access to low-cost generic medicines, require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, and interfere with fair use of copyrighted material, among many other dangers. Does the proposed ACTA contain provisions that would result in these harmful effects? There's no way to know, because the treaty text remains secret. There is no legitimate rationale for such secrecy, which denies people around the world an opportunity to comment on and influence the negotiations. We are asking organizations and individuals from around the world to sign on to a letter to ACTA negotiators, asking that they immediately make public the draft text of the treaty. The text of the letter, with initial signatories, is below. If you would like to sign the letter, please send your name, affiliation (if any), city/country and email address to Sarah Rimmington of Essential Action at: . Please specify if you are signing in your individual capacity or on behalf of an organization. **Pleaase note: Our deadline for accepting signatures is Thursday, August 21, 2008.** --- For more on ACTA, see: --- LETTER TO ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATORS Dear [Negotiator], We are writing to urge the negotiators of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to agree to publish immediately the draft text of the agreement, as well as pre-draft discussion papers (especially for portions for which no draft text yet exists), before continuing further discussions over the treaty. We ask also that you publish the agenda for negotiating sessions and treaty-related meetings in advance of such meetings, and publish a list of participants in the negotiations. There is no legitimate rationale to keep the treaty text secret, and manifold reasons for immediate publication. The trade in products intended to deceive consumers as to who made them poses important but complicated public policy issues. An overbroad or poorly drafted international instrument on counterfeiting could have very harmful consequences. Based on news reports and published material from various business associations, we are deeply concerned about matters such as whether the treaty will: * Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, terminate their customers' Internet connections based on rights holders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement, and divulge the identity of alleged copyright infringers possibly without judicial process, threatening Internet users' due process and privacy rights; and potentially make ISPs liable for their end users' alleged infringing activity; * Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials; * Criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing; * Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products; * Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), if those APIs are used to make counterfeits -- a liability system that may make API manufacturers reluctant to sell to legal generic drug makers, and thereby significantly damage the functioning of the legal generic pharmaceutical industry; * Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences; and * Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights. Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited. Equally, because the treaty text and relevant discussion documents remain secret, treaty negotiators are denied the insights and perspectives that public interest organizations and individuals could offer. Public review of the texts and a meaningful ability to comment would, among other benefits, help prevent unanticipated pernicious problems arising from the treaty. Such unforeseen outcomes are not unlikely, given the complexity of the issues involved. The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text discussion documents through long-standing communication channels. The G8's recent Declaration on the World Economy implored negotiators to include ACTA negotiations this year. The speed of the negotiations makes it imperative that relevant text and documents be made available to the citizens of the world immediately. We look forward to your response, and to working with you toward resolution of our concerns. Sincerely, Consumers Union Yonkers, NY, USA Electronic Frontier Foundation San Francisco, CA, USA Essential Action Washington, DC, USA IP Justice San Francisco, CA, USA Knowledge Ecology International Washington, DC, USA Public Knowledge Washington, DC, USA [list in formation) --- (Attachment to Sign-on Letter): OPENNESS IN TRADE AND OTHER MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS Negotiating texts are commonly made public in multilateral trade negotiation, although some trade negotiations are characterized by secrecy. Examples of negotiations where texts are or were made public include: * The current Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization; http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm * The Free Trade Area of the Americas; http://www.ftaa-alca.org/FTAADraft03/Index_e.asp * The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (although initial texts were not made public) http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_2649_33783766_1894819_1_1_1_1,00.html * Draft text at the World Health Organization, where resolutions are published in advance of consideration and treaty or treaty-like negotiations are handled openly, including this example of follow-on negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/ * The World Intellectual Property Organization, including this example of a draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=57213 _____ -- Sarah Rimmington Attorney Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project Washington, DC Tel: (202) 387-8030 Cell: (202) 422-2687 www.essentialaction.org/access/ *************************************************************************** Manon Ress manon.ress at keionline.org, 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 00:07:21 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:07:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A25DF9.7E53BE71@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, My response this time, is interspersed below... Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hi, Lisa: > Some questions for you... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already > > in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels > > from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge > > is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're > > capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging > > issues concerning internet communications. > > How would you relate to the fact that a clearly defined right to > privacy, articulated in both national laws and in international norms > and instruments, is abrogated by the ICANN Whois obligation? Two prongs > to this question. First, how and why do you think that happened? Second, > why is there so much interest in general declarations of rights amogn > civil society and so little interest and involvement in the actual ICANN > processes that could affect how that right is translated into reality in > the context of the Internet domain name system? Very good questions and related to ICANN's GAA-WG of which you chaired one section of, and was an active participant. > > > > I agree that > > constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but > > that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice > > concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights > > (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being > > in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the > > international rights system stems from the moral obligations > > it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always > > need legal enforcement. > > This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human > rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not > the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the > willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. Here we half agree and half disagree. Both a international legal text and mobilizing around that text is actually a requirement, IMO. > > > A secondary question: You say "we might not always need legal > enforcement." This assumes that there actually _is_ legal enforcement of > free expression rights in the international context. Here I plead > ignorance but hope you can supply me with information. Can you provide > an example of a case (or more than one case) in which UN institutions, > acting on the basis of international human rights "law" or declarations, > have put an end to an act of censorship or some other form of > suppression of free speech in some country? If I am a blogger in China > or Burma or the U.S. or Venezuela and my rights to free expression are > violated can I petition the UN, or initiate litigation based on > international rights and get that changed? Again, I also as earlier on this thread, plead ignorance as well. And I second your questions here Milton. Although I had already ask sever of them in a different form. > > > > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human > > rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance > > institution that would be responsible for monitoring > > governance policy and processes and assessing whether they > > uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone > > know if there was any more work done on that front? > > Of course not, if by "additional work" you mean a commitment was made by > the UN system and its member states to invest resources in it and > execute it. The problem is that there is no consensus among states on > what rights exist and even if there was consensus in principle states > would always disagree that they were violating them once so accused. Very good point! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 00:14:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:14:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <48A36C29.7050607@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <48A25FA4.F692B2@ix.netcom.com> Karl and all Again my response is interspersed below Karl Auerbach wrote: > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already in place > > to protect and interpret rights at various levels from the > > sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge is to bring these > > institutions up to standard ... > > It is not institutions that protect rights, but people who act and > participate to protect rights. Exactly right! > > > For example, ICANN is often pointed out as being deficient in the > protection of privacy. Yes, and mostly to little avail. > > > Yet the public barely participates within ICANN. Very true, and a shame now 10 years later. In fact, in recent years the numbers of active participants has declined sense the debacle of the GA. > > > No matter what institutions and constitutions and bills of rights are > created, they are worthless unless people participate either directly or > via active organizations (most particularly organizations that they > create themselves rather than those that are gifted upon them like some > kind of large horse placed outside the gates of Troy.) I am not always sure that the Trojan Horse analogy is appropriate always, but often it has been. Organizational capture via misleading intentions stated as base principals, such as the ALAC has proven to have been, or originally base principals abrigated later in the interest of compermise and based on a supposed "Rough Consensus". Such are demonstrations of lack of creditability, and accountable and open process. > > > --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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 00:15:42 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:15:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: ICANN Policy Update - August 2008] Message-ID: <48A25FEE.53CEB500@ix.netcom.com> All, For those that want to become involved, this might be a good place to start, if not already involved... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN Policy Update - August 2008 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:55 -0400 From: ICANN Policy Update To: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/ Policy Update http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/ Issue 6 - August 2008 ________________________________ Contents 1. YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED ON POLICY ISSUES http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#1 2. ICANN POLICY INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#2 3. IMPROVING THE GNSO - AND ASSIGNING COUNCIL SEATS http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#3 4. WHOIS - TO STUDY OR NOT TO STUDY? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#4 5. MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#5 6. HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#6 7. DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING - IF IT'S PREVALENT, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#7 8. INTERNATIONALIZNG COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAINS http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#8 9. IS IT TIME TO RE-CONSIDER ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#9 10. CCNSO WELCOMES .DZ, .AM http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#10 11. CCNSO IMPROVEMENT PLAN UNDERWAY http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#11 12. AT-LARGE INVOLVEMENT IN ICANN CONTINUES TO GROW http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#12 13. AT-LARGE - BRINGING AN INDIVIDUAL USER PERSPECTIVE TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update- aug08.htm#13 14. AT-LARGE ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#14 15. NEW GLOBAL ASN POLICY TO BE IMPLEMENTED, FUTURE OF GLOBAL IPV4 POLICY UNCLEAR http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#15 16. SSAC WORKING ON DNSSEC STATUS REPORT http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#16 17. SSAC ANALYZES PHISHING http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#17 18. SSAC REPORTS AND ADVISORIES AT A GLANCE http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#18 The ICANN Policy Update contains brief summaries of issues being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as information on related policy development activities. The ICANN Policy Staff provides monthly updates in response to requests from the community for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. The goal of the Policy Update is to maximize transparency and encourage broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. Links to additional information are included and readers are encouraged to go beyond these brief summaries to learn more about the ICANN community's work. As always, the Policy Staff welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve its policy communications efforts. Please send these comments to policy-staff at icann.org. This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Powered by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com Manage your subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11039061&l=6333&s=2K7Z&m=168046&c=165637 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 00:53:45 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:23:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080814045356.EF9A2A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> The final text for IGC's input doc to September consultations now is as follows. Unless some significant opposition to it is revised, it will be sent to the secretariat on IGC's behalf sometime tomorrow. The only difference from the text circulated earlier is the deletion of the term 'evaluation'. Thanks Parminder ____________ (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central theme of the IGF process. 2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." it is important that a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the same title at IGF, Hyderabad, and we would be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the process of review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF. It is important that a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing the main session workshops? The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.) (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the funding support available for participation of civil society from developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Parminder; > gurstein at gmail.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad > programme > > Then let's drop evaluation. Michael has related concerns. > > So point 2 would read: > > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of > the > continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, > within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > Membership in this regard." > > it is important that a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF > begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent > consultative process involving all stakeholders. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The > role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with > the > same title at IGF, Hyderabad, > and we > would > be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the > organizing > of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in > the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done > in > collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to work > with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the > process of review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF. It is > important that a review > [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders. > > > Parminder can correct me if I'm wrong (it's late). But I think this > is all wordsmithing and "friendly amendments" and should not delay > sending before the 15th. > > best, > > Adam > > > > At 3:33 PM -0400 8/13/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >I'm willing to accept Adam's reasonable amendment. Would prefer that the > >word "evaluation" be struck from it but unless many others concur it's > >not a show-stopper for me. > > > >Milton Mueller > >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > >------------------------------ > >Internet Governance Project: > >http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > >> > >> "it is important that a review and evaluation of > >> the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an > >> inclusive and transparent consultative process > >> involving all stakeholders" > >> > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Aug 14 02:41:04 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:41:04 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Roland, Well, most of my cards are also embossed, it is not that side I meant, I mean you must know in which end you need to put in your card! We also know that the embossing of the cards may not continue, and it is therefore we swish ISO to cut say the left corner of the card. But this is just one and minor standardisation we wish, another much more urgent one would be if all computer programs were equipped with synthetic speech useable for blind persons. The program that Microsoft has is far to bad to be used as the only way to navigate the computer. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Skickat: den 13 augusti 2008 15:29 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] ISO standards In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C at ensms02.iris.se>, at 09:59:12 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes >Right now the World Blind Union have proposed that credit cards should >be standardised in a way that blind people could differ the sides of >them and then be able to independent use them in ATM-machines etc Over the last 30 years I've had dozens of credit card accounts, and only one actual card that didn't have embossed digits on it. In fact, the embossing was required by the earlier "carbon paper" credit card forms, in order for a merchant to take the card details quickly, and the non-embossed card I have was deliberately different because it's for a strange account that you can't use in retail. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 14 05:35:42 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:35:42 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21 at ensms02.iris.se>, at 08:41:04 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes >Well, most of my cards are also embossed, it is not that side I meant, >I mean you must know in which end you need to put in your card! I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. All the cards I have are embossed only on the *bottom* half, so it's easy to tell which way round the card is. However, what people have told me off-list is that I'm not the only person who sometimes has trouble knowing which side of the card the reader wants. It's probably the "left" side most of the time, as that's where the "Chip" is on more modern cards. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Aug 14 10:28:13 2008 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (zara) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> And I think you are being unnecessarily contradictive on this issue. Unless you yourself have a visual impairment or have close-hand knowledge, I fail to see how you could seemingly dismiss out of hand needs that have been expressed by this community. But since you say yourself that many sighted people, including you, have a hard time figuring out which way the card is supposed to be inserted, ever wondered what it must be like for someone who can not see at all and has to figure it out in an environment they can not see either, often unfamiliar ? Contrarily to myth, people with visual impairments do not have a magical sixth sense. There are often simple ways of making their lives more manageable but unfortunately, many seem to make a mountain out of questioning current practices. -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Thu, August 14, 2008 5:35 am, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21 at ensms02.iris.se>, > at 08:41:04 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström > writes >>Well, most of my cards are also embossed, it is not that side I meant, >>I mean you must know in which end you need to put in your card! > > I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. All the cards I > have are embossed only on the *bottom* half, so it's easy to tell which > way round the card is. However, what people have told me off-list is > that I'm not the only person who sometimes has trouble knowing which > side of the card the reader wants. > > It's probably the "left" side most of the time, as that's where the > "Chip" is on more modern cards. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 11:49:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:19:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections - candidate bios In-Reply-To: <20080810142055.D838767825@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080814155116.6739FE04B6@smtp3.electricembers.net> In response to some members' queries here regarding information about candidates for the co-coordinator elections, I am resending the information that was shared earlier. Thanks. Parminder David Goldstein David has been involved in a range of internet governance issues over the last 13 years dealing with domain names, child protection and filtering issues and working with government and non-government organisations. Today David compiles an online media clipping service dealing with internet governance issues with clients including ICANN, auDA, Denic, InternetNZ, SWITCH, nic.at, Telnic, CoCCA and others. His strengths are researching, writing and analysis along with a good knowledge of internet governance issues. Ian Peter Ian Peter moved from a career in media and in the origins of community radio in Australia to setting up a global rainforest activist network in the early 1980s. An early adopter of pre-Internet global computer networks, he became involved in both UN and Internet initiatives in 1985, when he was commissioned by United Nations Environment Program to establish an Asian on line network of non-government organizations. In 1989 he established Pegasus Networks offering access to email and Internet services, with a focus on NGO communications. It grew to employ over 30 people. In the same year he was a founding director of the Association for Progressive Communications (www.apc.org ). By 1992, just before most people began to experience the World Wide Web, Ian Peter established a consultancy business to address growing interest in Internet and new technologies. As Principal Consultant and Project Manager he undertook assignments advising government, industry and international organizations, including both UN and internet governance organisations. During the 1990s Ian Peter established an award winning Internet History portal at www.nethistory.info . He first became involved in Internet governance discussions in the lead up to the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (www.wsis.org ) and has been involved with the Internet Governance Caucus ever since. He has held a number of honorary positions including as a member of the inaugural .ORG Advisory Council and on the Editorial Board of First Monday (www.firstmonday.org). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 14 12:12:53 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:12:53 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: In message <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel at webmail.catherine-roy.net>, at 10:28:13 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, zara writes >But since you say yourself that many sighted people, including you, >have a hard time figuring out which way the card is supposed to be >inserted, ever wondered what it must be like for someone who can not >see at all and has to figure it out in an environment they can not see >either, often unfamiliar ? The point here is that even if the credit card had "This way up" embossed in Braille (or whatever) there is something ill-defined, non-intuitive, or otherwise distracting, about the slots designed to accept the cards, which means even people with normal sight don't always put the card in the right way round. It's the slots that need fixing, not the cards. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 14 13:08:03 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:08:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B at ix.netcom.com>, at 20:50:36 on Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >If indeed that there is not going to be a unified agreed upon >text/draft for a Internet "Bill of Rights", than how does the IGF >expect to be taken seriously on such a notion? You seem to think "the IGF" is some sort of corporate entity capable of assuming an identity (which can then be taken seriously or not depending on people's perceptions of its actions). That's not the case - the Chair has said on many occasions that one of the main reasons the IGF can't "negotiate a text" or "vote" on anything is because it has no such identity or even a formal membership - being merely a group of people whoever happen to turn up for a meeting once a year. Yes, there's a chair (and perhaps a co-chair, although not this year so far), and a secretariat, and a MAG, and meetings every three months in Geneva, but they are simply setting the scene for the main meeting. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 13:24:35 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:24:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear Lisa, Other options for "virtual personality" may be "virtual identity" or "digital identity". In Costa Rica at an early stage we first used "identity", but later, we changed to "personality". I understand that also the German Constitutional Court used "personality" or a variant of this term. Please also note that this new fundamental right(link below - A) protects not just privacy (content), but much more, including, existence, presence and projection: 1. Existence: It means that it is a right, and not a privilege granted by Corporations or Governments, to exist on the internet, or any future global virtual network. This virtual existence goes beyond email, blog, skype account or social sites, but also bank accounts, or exist on a database (always with the person/human agreement) that implies benefit for the person, for example a database of benefits that people in extreme poverty receives. This means that it is a human right to have a bank account!. For you and me it is not important, because we both have bank accounts, however for people in extreme poverty(B), it means a lot, because it is a tool to get funds that otherwise get lost. This component is strongly related with access. 2. Presence: Protects your virtual presence in all virtual networks. This mean that it will be unconstitutional any kind (email, SMS, fax, phone calls, blog, etc) of spam and of tracking (RFID, cellular) without the person prior consent. 3. Projection: Protects not just your content being used by others, but also your intentions or wills. The intentions will be strategic in the future, specially because of all the developments in bot´s and systems that help people get what they want. Like everything else, probably there is a lot of edition to make in the constitutional text to make it better, and any contribution from any person will be greatly appreciated. At least this represent a first case that will motivate other Congresses around the world to consider this new fundamental right, and definitely IBR can be the host of this process (the common shared place where all Congresses exchange information and communicate). Please note that Germany has the new "internet" fundamental right (which deals mainly about privacy, and not about presence, existence and projection) because of a case presented in the Constitutional Court, and not because of a Congress process, which takes a lot of time. This means that other countries, including USA, can take that "shortcut" to have this new fundamental right, in a much shorter time. Sorry for the long email, and I will be more than happy to comment more details about anything on this email. Very best regards, Jaco Some relevant links: Spanish http://personalidadvirtual.blogspot.com/ http://www.asamblea.go.cr/actual/boletin/2006/oct06/24oct06.htm http://www.prensalibre.co.cr/2007/marzo/17/abanico08.php English (sorry, the material in English is bad translated...) The fundamental right text being studied by the CR Human Rights Congress commission: (A) http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc (B) More about the relation with extreme poverty eradication: http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/project_overview_latest.pdf On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi Jaco > > > > Thanks for your support for the FoE Project, and congratulations on the > progress that you've made in Costa Rica around the 'virtual personality' > right. I think in English it's more commonly referred to as the right to > privacy online/ the right to protect 'digital identity'? Yes, I do think > that the recent developments in German law are very positive and important. > This process of adapting national legislation and constitutional protections > to the internet age is incredibly important to watch and for rights > activists to be involved in. Germany's constitutional court has addressed > directly the complications of balancing privacy rights with notions of the > 'public interest' (eg security) – I think it would be great to have someone > who was involved in the process on the IGF panel concerning cyber-security > and trust. > > > > Regarding how this relates to the FoE project – in our framework we would > see introducing protections for digital identity and privacy in national law > as a way for governments to uphold the principle concerning privacy. > Privacy is obviously a key principle, with an intimate relationship to > freedom of expression. > > > > Best wishes, > > Lisa > > > > *From:* Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 12 August 2008 02:32 > *To:* Lisa Horner > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > Dear Lisa, > > Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. Let me > know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > > Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > course it has to be done in the right way.... > > If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier to > implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", made a > few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Best regards, > > Jaco > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi Max and all > > > > Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally interested in > your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we could > start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of > rights wiki? > > > > Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those who aren't > interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! > > > > The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression > Project. I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key > partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles > that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that > would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and > content. The latest draft of the principles is available and open for > comment at > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > > > The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that > they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them to provide > an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different > scales. For example, our project partners are currently working to > elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in > turn will provide the foundations for policy work. A major aim is to > identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share > certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > > > We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human > rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture > and the right to participation in government. We've taken an expansive > definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights > institutions and lawyers around the world take. This includes positive > dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments > are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in > place for the right to be realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > the internet or to communication. The sentiments and demands expressed by > these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system. In > my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding > what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions > of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as > Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with > them actually means in practice. > > > > The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this > effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is > being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case > law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. It is > taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it > is firmly rooted in the international human rights system. In this way, if > the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights > standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions. > > > > Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues, > we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the > 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the > internet' are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most widely > accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in > reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with > them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > > > I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts > on the work we're doing, and am keen to explore opportunities to > collaborate on further research on any of these issues. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Lisa > > > > *From:* bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto: > bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Max Senges > *Sent:* 06 August 2008 17:36 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > dear lisa and all > > Lisa wrote: > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and > Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to > frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > the fall. > > It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research > undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. > > Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? > > Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get > in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication > > best > max > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the > appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues > quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here > in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the > draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public > awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. > Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and > internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say > there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what > the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work > with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC > tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this > terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing > ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong > man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit > belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short > again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and > spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with > those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Bill-of-Rights mailing list > Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 skorpio at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 16:51:36 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:51:36 -0600 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Roland and all, Nice to cyber meet you, and everyone of you that I have not been presented already. ;-) Yes, IGF can not do that, but may be it can consider having pointers/links to the already "Internet Bill of Rights" ("fundamental right") operational (Germany), or in process (Costa Rica). Also it can consider sending those pointers/links to the Human Rights Commission in all the Congresses worldwide, and provide a unique virtual place (mailing list, social site, forum, chat, wiki. etc) for exchanges. This actions may speed up the process of having Internet Bill of Rights in every country, without IGF having to define a specific text of and Internet Bill or Rights. Roland and anyone, thanks in advance for any comments on this action. Best regards, Jaco On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B at ix.netcom.com>, at 20:50:36 on Tue, 12 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > >> If indeed that there is not going to be a unified agreed upon text/draft >> for a Internet "Bill of Rights", than how does the IGF expect to be taken >> seriously on such a notion? >> > > You seem to think "the IGF" is some sort of corporate entity capable of > assuming an identity (which can then be taken seriously or not depending on > people's perceptions of its actions). > > That's not the case - the Chair has said on many occasions that one of the > main reasons the IGF can't "negotiate a text" or "vote" on anything is > because it has no such identity or even a formal membership - being merely a > group of people whoever happen to turn up for a meeting once a year. > > Yes, there's a chair (and perhaps a co-chair, although not this year so > far), and a secretariat, and a MAG, and meetings every three months in > Geneva, but they are simply setting the scene for the main meeting. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 21:01:46 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:01:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] DG Trade tender for civil soc meetings Message-ID: <48A383FA.65A8000@ix.netcom.com> All, Mostly as an FYI: DG Trade in the EU Commission is letting a tender to organise meetings for civil society on trade issues. Tenders need to be by 8th September. In the past DG trade has defined civil soc widely and included industry and trade bodies. It is interesting that they are in effect outsourcing this function. If interested details here: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/icentre/opportunities/tender/tender.htm Framework contract to organise seminars for civil society organisations (TRADE 08/C1/C11) PDF file Invitation letter PDF file Terms of reference PDF file Brussels, 9 August 2008 Time limit for receipt of tenders or requests to participate: 8 September 2008 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 21:23:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:23:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <48A38919.18DF2D99@ix.netcom.com> Lisa and all, Excellent answers, most of which I and our members agree with in principal and in general. The problem is that the UN and other international organizations either governmental or not, cannot, have not, and likely in the near future ( 20 -30 years ) be able to enforce such principals or even national laws if ever passed and recognized in a timely manner. Ergo, justice delayed, is justice denied. Not good enough, and nearly worthless on an individual basis or in many potential instances, organizational basis! Such, your answers, is not therefore practical on a wide basis. I suggest and take from history that each individual must stand up for anyones and everyones rights, and do so immediately as well as be not only willing, but as a matter of duty, forfit their very lives if necessary, if such rights are to be fully and justifyably recognized and enforced, as well as more redily followed... Tuff stuff here? Indeed, yes it is! Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi Milton > > I'm not an expert in these issues - merely hoping that those who are get > more involved. You ask really important questions, and more research > and policy work in this area could be really productive. > > My thoughts in response to your questions below... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 13 August 2008 23:17 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: RE: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > Hi, Lisa: > Some questions for you... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already > > in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels > > from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge > > is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're > > capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging > > issues concerning internet communications. > > How would you relate to the fact that a clearly defined right to > privacy, articulated in both national laws and in international norms > and instruments, is abrogated by the ICANN Whois obligation? Two prongs > to this question. First, how and why do you think that happened? Second, > why is there so much interest in general declarations of rights amogn > civil society and so little interest and involvement in the actual ICANN > processes that could affect how that right is translated into reality in > the context of the Internet domain name system? > > In answer to the first question, as I understand it, the Whois > negotiations have been dominated by the corporate sector, with IP > lawyers to defend trademark interests. Put crudely, money and power led > to IP rights trumping privacy rights. Also exactly what you highlighted > before - a lack of understanding of rights and how to balance them, and > the global IP regime's interpretation of IP rights in favour of > corporate rights holders. > > I think your second question also in part answers the first. A lack of > involvement in ICANN processes is the result of a lack of understanding > about said processes and the issues they address, coupled with (a > perception of?) their technical nature and intangibility. I know this > lack of participation is something that you and others are trying to > address, and I applaud your efforts. I also understand it to be the > result of ICANN structures of participation, proposals for the reform of > which I think have been hotly debated on this list. I've been meaning > to try and engage more for a while, but as always, time is an issue. > But if you think participation from the likes of me would be useful, > tell me when and how and I'll do my best. > > > I agree that > > constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but > > that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice > > concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights > > (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being > > in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the > > international rights system stems from the moral obligations > > it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always > > need legal enforcement. > > This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human > rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not > the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the > willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. > > It's not just pressure from civil society - it's a process of building > norms and principles amongst all 'stakeholders' (including, as Karl > pointed out, people in general) around shared values. In terms of human > rights - an incomplete and difficult process, but one that has > progressed over the past 60 years. 'Civil society' has a huge role to > play, as do inter-governmental organizations who directly or indirectly > work on rights issues (in other sectors the ILO, WHO; in this sector > UNESCO, ITU...IGF). Law also contributes to the process, and the UN > human rights institutions, regional courts and national courts have all > contributed to the evolving understanding of what human rights > principles mean in theory and in practice. People, through using the > internet and engaging or not engaging in policy processes, are also > contributing. I think an important dynamic to watch is the emergence of > corporate social responsibility principles and policies. Adhering to > positive values-based principles can make good business sense. > > If the question is whether rights are important if civil society can be > mobilized around issues without their codification in international law, > my response is that, if the issue is linked to existing human rights > standards, reference to rights will lend the mobilization moral strength > and, in some instances, legal weight. > > A secondary question: You say "we might not always need legal > enforcement." This assumes that there actually _is_ legal enforcement of > free expression rights in the international context. Here I plead > ignorance but hope you can supply me with information. Can you provide > an example of a case (or more than one case) in which UN institutions, > acting on the basis of international human rights "law" or declarations, > have put an end to an act of censorship or some other form of > suppression of free speech in some country? If I am a blogger in China > or Burma or the U.S. or Venezuela and my rights to free expression are > violated can I petition the UN, or initiate litigation based on > international rights and get that changed? > > There are mechanisms for enforcing human rights at the UN, regional and > national levels. Citizens in states who have signed the Optional > Protocol to the ICCPR can take complaints against the state to the Human > Rights Commission. Whilst the commission can't hand down binding > decisions, it can rule whether a violation of rights has occurred and > make recommendations to the state in question. The European Court can > take citizens' cases once all national options have been exhausted, and > the Inter-American Commission can refer individuals' complaints to the > Inter-American Court. > > Free expression cases have been taken by all of these bodies, with > rulings against the state in many cases. Eg. Conviction on grounds of > state security of an individual participating in a trade union protests > and releasing statements critical of the government in South Korea was > deemed by the human rights commission to be in violation of freedom of > expression. The Inter-American Court ruled against Chile's banning of > Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, prompting reform of Chile's film > censorship/classification regime. > > Bloggers in China and Burma would have very few mechanisms for redress, > having not ratified the ICCPR. Venezuela is in the jurisdiction of the > Inter-American Court and has ratified the ICCPR and the optional > protocol. Surely the first amendment effectively provides protections > for US bloggers? > > Obviously using these mechanisms isn't easy or efficient, but the main > point is that they are there. The next thing to do is to work out how > they can be improved and used better. And, as we've already discussed, > everything is complicated further by the extra-territorial nature of the > internet and the communications it hosts. I'm not an expert in this > area and I don't know of any specific free expression-internet related > cases in the international or national rights courts - can anyone else > shed any light here? Strategic litigation in this area could be very > interesting. On a related note, I would support any effort to get the UN > Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression involved in the IGF. > > Going back to the earlier points around norms and institutions - in my > opinion the fact that the US and many other countries haven't ratified > the optional protocol of the ICPPR doesn't render ratification of the > covenant itself toothless. The moral weight of human rights shouldn't > be underestimated - which I assume is why any reference to them in > official IGF circles is controversial. All the more reason to work with > the rights system rather than shy away from it in my opinion. > > > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human > > rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance > > institution that would be responsible for monitoring > > governance policy and processes and assessing whether they > > uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone > > know if there was any more work done on that front? > > Of course not, if by "additional work" you mean a commitment was made by > the UN system and its member states to invest resources in it and > execute it. The problem is that there is no consensus among states on > what rights exist and even if there was consensus in principle states > would always disagree that they were violating them once so accused. > > No, I didn't mean any work by governments or inter-governmental > organizations. I meant by the proposers of the idea in the first place - > people who were in the HRC. There is a degree of agreement on what > rights exist amongst states who have ratified the covenants of the > international bill of rights. There isn't agreement on what they mean > in relation to internet-based communication, which is where a body like > this could be useful. Of course getting agreement to set an official > body up wouldn't happen overnight. Just wondering if anyone's done any > thinking/action on how to start building an informal one with > sympathetic stakeholders. I guess the Centre for Democracy and > Technology/Berkman/BSR principles are taking a step in this kind of > direction. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 13 21:28:42 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:28:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48A38A4A.91FBF96C@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, My response interspersed below... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B at ix.netcom.com>, at 20:50:36 on Tue, 12 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > >If indeed that there is not going to be a unified agreed upon > >text/draft for a Internet "Bill of Rights", than how does the IGF > >expect to be taken seriously on such a notion? > > You seem to think "the IGF" is some sort of corporate entity capable of > assuming an identity (which can then be taken seriously or not depending > on people's perceptions of its actions). Any entity corporate or not, can do so, and many have. But no, I do not make such an assumption in respect to the IGF. > > > That's not the case - the Chair has said on many occasions that one of > the main reasons the IGF can't "negotiate a text" or "vote" on anything > is because it has no such identity or even a formal membership - being > merely a group of people whoever happen to turn up for a meeting once a > year. Yes, I understand that. > > > Yes, there's a chair (and perhaps a co-chair, although not this year so > far), and a secretariat, and a MAG, and meetings every three months in > Geneva, but they are simply setting the scene for the main meeting. Also already understood. > > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 15 09:00:51 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:00:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message , at 14:51:36 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jaco Aizenman writes >Yes, IGF can not do that, but may be it can consider having >pointers/links to the already "Internet Bill of Rights" ("fundamental >right") operational (Germany), or in process (Costa Rica). The IGF can't because it doesn't have a suitable platform. Perhaps the IGF Secretariat could, but then it becomes a sort of "Wikipedia for Governance issues" and would need to have links (for example) to lawful intercept policies in various countries too. It's a huge project, and not necessarily one that it was set up to deliver. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Aug 15 09:34:34 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:34:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FCEB526-D6E6-450A-AC09-21258C02EB33@Malcolm.id.au> Yes - sorry for the delayed response, I have been travelling. On 12/08/2008, at 5:33 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > > Just say yes or no. > > Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get > sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to > influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and > messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.) > > All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have > our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > > Adam > > > > Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > > (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core > theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain > a central theme of the IGF process. > > (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that > this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the > other main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of > the Tunis Agenda, > > "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability > of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." > > it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins > promptly. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a > workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" > and we would be pleased if this workshop could help support > discussion during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to > work with the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin > the process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to > include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward > session at the Hyderabad meeting. > > (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and > setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main > session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops > accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have > been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is > present in each of the working groups organizing the main session > workshops? > > The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders > will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups > developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly > influencing the main session debates.) > > (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the > meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks > etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > > (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing > countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this. > We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a > smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from > developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the > IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately > addressed. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From babatope at gmail.com Fri Aug 15 11:49:56 2008 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:49:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. In-Reply-To: <3FCEB526-D6E6-450A-AC09-21258C02EB33@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3FCEB526-D6E6-450A-AC09-21258C02EB33@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Milton's modification sounds interesting as the words are also a bit more precise. However, i support the contribution whether the text is changed or not. Regards, On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Yes - sorry for the delayed response, I have been travelling. > > On 12/08/2008, at 5:33 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. >> >> Just say yes or no. >> >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent >> and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the >> process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar >> (friendly amendments welcome.) >> >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our >> coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper >> >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme >> of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central >> theme of the IGF process. >> >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, >> >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN >> Membership in this regard." >> >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The >> role and mandate of the IGF" >> and we would >> be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking >> stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other >> stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of >> the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock >> and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. >> >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up >> the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has >> been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups >> and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing >> the main session workshops? >> >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will >> have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing >> the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main >> session debates.) >> >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, >> particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information >> about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, >> Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. >> >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries >> and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the >> September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for >> allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been >> identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it >> is not being adequately addressed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- '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........ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Fri Aug 15 11:51:30 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:51:30 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Roland, You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Skickat: den 14 augusti 2008 18:13 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Kopia: Kicki Nordström; zara Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In message <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel at webmail.catherine-roy.net>, at 10:28:13 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, zara writes >But since you say yourself that many sighted people, including you, >have a hard time figuring out which way the card is supposed to be >inserted, ever wondered what it must be like for someone who can not >see at all and has to figure it out in an environment they can not see >either, often unfamiliar ? The point here is that even if the credit card had "This way up" embossed in Braille (or whatever) there is something ill-defined, non-intuitive, or otherwise distracting, about the slots designed to accept the cards, which means even people with normal sight don't always put the card in the right way round. It's the slots that need fixing, not the cards. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Aug 15 12:48:11 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:48:11 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: Kicki wrote: "it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid". That is the story that would have been told since to avoid all the tongue twisting here that have taken place here. I do earnestly hope and believe that in a forum like this one where people have less time to throw away, beating about the bush (as has happened on this topic) is the easiest way to call people for cards playing. But the.... Cheers Aaron On 8/15/08, Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Roland, > > You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid. > > Yours > Kicki > > > Kicki Nordström > Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) > World Blind Union (WBU) > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Skickat: den 14 augusti 2008 18:13 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Kopia: Kicki Nordström; zara > Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards > > In message > <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel at webmail.catherine-roy.net>, at > 10:28:13 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, zara writes > > >But since you say yourself that many sighted people, including you, > >have a hard time figuring out which way the card is supposed to be > >inserted, ever wondered what it must be like for someone who can not > >see at all and has to figure it out in an environment they can not see > >either, often unfamiliar ? > > The point here is that even if the credit card had "This way up" > embossed in Braille (or whatever) there is something ill-defined, non-intuitive, or otherwise distracting, about the slots designed to accept the cards, which means even people with normal sight don't always put the card in the right way round. It's the slots that need fixing, not the cards. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 15 13:04:13 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:04:13 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7 at ensms02.iris.se>, at 17:51:30 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes > >You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix It is, because as you noted, even normally-sighted people have problems knowing which way to insert cards. >it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, Well at least that's consistent with denying that the current embossing is a very good indication of which way up the card is. >only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not >that complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become >invalid. I can see why cutting a corner off the card would cause all sorts of problems with card-handling apparatus. Are you really sure a Braille marker on that corner you'd otherwise have cut off isn't a suitable proxy? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Fri Aug 15 14:15:44 2008 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:15:44 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> Well, GSM Cellphone chips have one corner cut off. Otherwise, we would all have trouble knowing which way up to put the chip in the slot. CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Cc: "zara" ; "Kicki Nordström" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7 at ensms02.iris.se>, at 17:51:30 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes > >You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix It is, because as you noted, even normally-sighted people have problems knowing which way to insert cards. >it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, Well at least that's consistent with denying that the current embossing is a very good indication of which way up the card is. >only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that >complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid. I can see why cutting a corner off the card would cause all sorts of problems with card-handling apparatus. Are you really sure a Braille marker on that corner you'd otherwise have cut off isn't a suitable proxy? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 15 14:29:31 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:29:31 -0400 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F85@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Hi Chris, Speaking of GSM and GSM's original standardizers, I had suggested to Kicki off-list that ETSI might be a more receptive place to start, especially if it got a nudge from the Commission. You have an opinion on that? Lee -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be] Sent: Fri 8/15/2008 2:15 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards Well, GSM Cellphone chips have one corner cut off. Otherwise, we would all have trouble knowing which way up to put the chip in the slot. CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Cc: "zara" ; "Kicki Nordström" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7 at ensms02.iris.se>, at 17:51:30 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes > >You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix It is, because as you noted, even normally-sighted people have problems knowing which way to insert cards. >it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, Well at least that's consistent with denying that the current embossing is a very good indication of which way up the card is. >only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that >complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid. I can see why cutting a corner off the card would cause all sorts of problems with card-handling apparatus. Are you really sure a Braille marker on that corner you'd otherwise have cut off isn't a suitable proxy? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 15 15:08:34 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:08:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights as core theme of the IGF Message-ID: <4d976d8e0808151208p769d3e47vbef5680f154c0db9@mail.gmail.com> Dear IGF Secretariate & MAG The Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights would like you to consider the attached letter, in which we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for Hyderabad, as our input to the open discussion of the IGF 2008 program. Please note that the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus has expressed its full support and endorsement of the letter. Kind regards, Max Senges ------------------------------------------------- Dr. Max Senges Chair of the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition http://internet-bill-of-rights.org ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_rights_as_main_theme.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 63429 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 14 19:25:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:25:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, I am not sure that what your seem to be getting at aids greatly to Visibility. Wikipedia has a reather checkered credability history, and as such may not be the best or even a good means by which for achiving the visibility goal or even improvment... Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 14:51:36 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jaco Aizenman writes > >Yes, IGF can not do that, but may be it can consider having > >pointers/links to the already "Internet Bill of Rights" ("fundamental > >right") operational (Germany), or in process (Costa Rica). > > The IGF can't because it doesn't have a suitable platform. Perhaps the > IGF Secretariat could, but then it becomes a sort of "Wikipedia for > Governance issues" and would need to have links (for example) to lawful > intercept policies in various countries too. It's a huge project, and > not necessarily one that it was set up to deliver. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 15 17:40:42 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:40:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights In-Reply-To: <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF@ix.netcom.com> References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <259sLAdaffpIFA2V@perry.co.uk> In message <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF at ix.netcom.com>, at 16:25:01 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > I am not sure that what your seem to be getting at aids >greatly to Visibility. Wikipedia has a reather checkered >credability history, and as such may not be the best or >even a good means by which for achiving the visibility >goal or even improvment... Obviously I didn't mean literally Wikipedia [tm] which is why I said "a sort of wikipedia for governance issues". And it was someone else who suggested it might be useful for "the IGF" (whatever that is) to publish proceedings of various fringe groups. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 14 19:47:05 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:47:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programmepaper. References: <3FCEB526-D6E6-450A-AC09-21258C02EB33@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <48A4C3F9.A6C14972@ix.netcom.com> Babatope and all, In as far as the USA is concerned, recently/today, the current presidential candidates have both decided to at least support some much stronger "Rights" vis a vi security and privacy, which has been one of our organizations goals for several years. See: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/081408-mccain-promotes-online-security-privacy.html?netht=rn_081508&nladname=081508dailynewsamal McCain's: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/975d6a22-2c5f-43b4-a083-1616bc2c4bc3.htm Obama's: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ Unfortunately both of these candidates positions seem to bud up against their votes on the FISA amended law extension. It is my guess only that should Obama be elected he may abrogate his errant vote in favor of the FISA amended compromise legislation/law extension. In the US anyway, the greatest threat unfortunately to individuals privacy and security comes from within, instead of from without, as it were... One might characterize such in the old refrain, "we have met the enemy, and he is us"... Certainly Google/gmail/YouTube, Yahoo, and MS, have shown us all this quite and horribly clear... Babatope Soremi wrote: > Milton's modification sounds interesting as the words are also a bit > more precise. However, i support the contribution whether the text is > changed or not. > > Regards, > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Yes - sorry for the delayed response, I have been travelling. > > > > On 12/08/2008, at 5:33 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper. > >> > >> Just say yes or no. > >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get sent > >> and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to influence the > >> process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and messed-up grammar > >> (friendly amendments welcome.) > >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have our > >> coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper > >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme > >> of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a central > >> theme of the IGF process. > >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this > >> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main > >> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda, > >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the > >> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, > >> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > >> Membership in this regard." > >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly. > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop "The > >> role and mandate of the IGF" > >> and we would > >> be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion during the taking > >> stock session. We would be pleased to work with the MAG and all other > >> stakeholders in discussions to begin the process of review and evaluation of > >> the IGF and how to best to include this important topic in the taking stock > >> and way forward session at the Hyderabad meeting. > >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up > >> the working groups that are now developing the main session workshops has > >> been very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working groups > >> and some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced > >> representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing > >> the main session workshops? > >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders will > >> have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups developing > >> the main session workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main > >> session debates.) > >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the meetings, > >> particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), information > >> about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food and refreshments, > >> Internet cafes, and the IGF Village. > >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing countries > >> and civil society? Could we please have details of this. We note that the > >> September consultations may be too late to manage a smooth process for > >> allocating funds. Improving participating from developing countries has been > >> identified as a critical issue by the IGFs to date, we are concerned that it > >> is not being adequately addressed. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > '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........ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 15 17:51:32 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:51:32 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> Message-ID: In message <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0 at wilkinson>, at 20:15:44 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Christopher Wilkinson writes >Well, GSM Cellphone chips have one corner cut off. Otherwise, we would >all have trouble knowing which way up to put the chip in the slot. Oddly enough, the original plan was to have a GSM card that was the same size as a credit card, and which you inserted in any phone. The billing would be to the card, not the phone. Then business models changed so that hardware became locked to the SIM, and the lack of need (by then) to regularly swap SIMMs meant they could be made much smaller. Even so, I doubt there's much ambiguity about which way to insert them, because even without the corner cut-off there's only four possibilities, and if people can be trained to realise that the "writing should be on top and the gold contacts underneath" that reduces to just two. That doesn't mean that cutting off the corner is a bad idea, but I wish the "regulators" had managed to get the cellphone industry to keep to the original concept. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 14 20:10:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights as core theme of the IGF References: <4d976d8e0808151208p769d3e47vbef5680f154c0db9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A4C963.3714C187@ix.netcom.com> Max and all, I fully support this as a core theme. And well done! I shall also pass this along to our members and humbly request that they review, and if also in agreement to let me know so that I can pass back to this group their decision, as well as pass it along as broadly as possible. Max Senges wrote: > Dear IGF Secretariate & MAG > > The Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights would like you to > consider the attached letter, in which we respectfully ask the > Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the > draft agenda and to add "Rights and the Internet" as a core theme for > Hyderabad, as our input to the open discussion of the IGF 2008 > program. > > Please note that the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus has > expressed its full support and endorsement of the letter. > > Kind regards, > Max Senges > > ------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Max Senges > Chair of the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition > > http://internet-bill-of-rights.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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Fri Aug 15 18:28:37 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:28:37 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D82@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D82@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear Lisa, "Projection" is about your intentions or about scoring... Let me explain it, using an analogy, made by my friend Nat Sakimura, trustee at www.xdi.org, an organization working on a protocol, XRI, that may help giving users the ability to enjoy more rights on the net. I do not know if you like soccer/football, but since you live in planet Earth :-) , you probably know the basics of the game (with cricket, most people do not know...). So, if you use your virtual personality (email, blog, phone, cellular, SMS, database record, bank account) to get something for your benefit, you score a goal, but if someone else use it for something against your benefit, you received a goal. With this analogy you can see that people working on privacy protection, are defenders. Trying to avoid that others do not use your virtual personality against you. Some people claim that the best Goal keeper may be the Constitutional Court (US Supreme Court), specially if you give the goal keeper a "good pair of gloves", or a specific virtual personality fundamental right, that they can use.... (I sent a link in my last email of an example of such a test, now being studied at the CR Congress) And projection is mainly about scoring... The best example of projection is projecting your intentions for your benefit. Example of intentions can be: A. If you are in extreme poverty, a data base record, with the consent of the person, that shows what it needs. Also a bot (software robot) that informs and interacts with people and entities that can help this person (today is not operational but in a few years it will...). B. Your CV and your requirements to change job (In the next few years people will be able to have this available for everyone. Probably this will be done by Google or alike, in the same way they are now having online the medical records. So this new right will make Google and others to be more gentle in the Terms of Service... ;-) ). C. Same as B, but offering a service or product instead of your CV. D. Same as B but about relations, including looking and searching for friends and mate/couple. In the future, probably, most countries will offer to their citizens several kinds of projection services, because it will increase economically and socially the quality of life of the people. This information, *your intentions*, it is very yours, but it is also very valuable, specially for companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook, and it needs protection. If not, you will have not choice but to accept the terms that Corporations will offer you, for receiving those projection related benefits... Sorry again for the long email, and I hope that we can exchange a lot more in the future!. :-) Very best regards, Jaco On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for all of this information Jaco – it is certainly important > progress that you're making. I'm especially interested in the ideas of > projection as they're quite new to me. Please could you explain a bit more > so that I can be sure that I fully understand? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Lisa > > > > *From:* Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 14 August 2008 18:25 > > *To:* Lisa Horner > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > Dear Lisa, > > Other options for "virtual personality" may be "virtual identity" or > "digital identity". In Costa Rica at an early stage we first used > "identity", but later, we changed to "personality". I understand that also > the German Constitutional Court used "personality" or a variant of this > term. > > Please also note that this new fundamental right(link below - A) protects > not just privacy (content), but much more, including, existence, presence > and projection: > > 1. Existence: It means that it is a right, and not a privilege granted by > Corporations or Governments, to exist on the internet, or any future global > virtual network. This virtual existence goes beyond email, blog, skype > account or social sites, but also bank accounts, or exist on a database > (always with the person/human agreement) that implies benefit for the > person, for example a database of benefits that people in extreme poverty > receives. > > This means that it is a human right to have a bank account!. For you and me > it is not important, because we both have bank accounts, however for people > in extreme poverty(B), it means a lot, because it is a tool to get funds > that otherwise get lost. > > This component is strongly related with access. > > 2. Presence: Protects your virtual presence in all virtual networks. This > mean that it will be unconstitutional any kind (email, SMS, fax, phone > calls, blog, etc) of spam and of tracking (RFID, cellular) without the > person prior consent. > > 3. Projection: Protects not just your content being used by others, but > also your intentions or wills. The intentions will be strategic in the > future, specially because of all the developments in bot´s and systems that > help people get what they want. > > Like everything else, probably there is a lot of edition to make in the > constitutional text to make it better, and any contribution from any person > will be greatly appreciated. > > At least this represent a first case that will motivate other Congresses > around the world to consider this new fundamental right, and definitely IBR > can be the host of this process (the common shared place where all > Congresses exchange information and communicate). > > Please note that Germany has the new "internet" fundamental right (which > deals mainly about privacy, and not about presence, existence and > projection) because of a case presented in the Constitutional Court, and not > because of a Congress process, which takes a lot of time. This means that > other countries, including USA, can take that "shortcut" to have this new > fundamental right, in a much shorter time. > > Sorry for the long email, and I will be more than happy to comment more > details about anything on this email. > > Very best regards, > > Jaco > > Some relevant links: > > Spanish > http://personalidadvirtual.blogspot.com/ > http://www.asamblea.go.cr/actual/boletin/2006/oct06/24oct06.htm > http://www.prensalibre.co.cr/2007/marzo/17/abanico08.php > > English (sorry, the material in English is bad translated...) > The fundamental right text being studied by the CR Human Rights Congress > commission: > (A) > http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc > (B) > More about the relation with extreme poverty eradication: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/project_overview_latest.pdf > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi Jaco > > > > Thanks for your support for the FoE Project, and congratulations on the > progress that you've made in Costa Rica around the 'virtual personality' > right. I think in English it's more commonly referred to as the right to > privacy online/ the right to protect 'digital identity'? Yes, I do think > that the recent developments in German law are very positive and important. > This process of adapting national legislation and constitutional protections > to the internet age is incredibly important to watch and for rights > activists to be involved in. Germany's constitutional court has addressed > directly the complications of balancing privacy rights with notions of the > 'public interest' (eg security) – I think it would be great to have someone > who was involved in the process on the IGF panel concerning cyber-security > and trust. > > > > Regarding how this relates to the FoE project – in our framework we would > see introducing protections for digital identity and privacy in national law > as a way for governments to uphold the principle concerning privacy. > Privacy is obviously a key principle, with an intimate relationship to > freedom of expression. > > > > Best wishes, > > Lisa > > > > *From:* Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 12 August 2008 02:32 > *To:* Lisa Horner > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > Dear Lisa, > > Thank you for the FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. Let me > know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica. > > Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is > complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of > course it has to be done in the right way.... > > If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual > personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier to > implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa. > > Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", made a > few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > Best regards, > > Jaco > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi Max and all > > > > Thanks for your interest in what we're doing. I'm equally interested in > your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration. Maybe we could > start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of > rights wiki? > > > > Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those who aren't > interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now! > > > > The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression > Project. I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key > partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles > that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that > would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications > environment. They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and > content. The latest draft of the principles is available and open for > comment at > http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment. > > > > > The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that > they can be tailored to specific contexts. The idea is for them to provide > an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different > scales. For example, our project partners are currently working to > elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in > turn will provide the foundations for policy work. A major aim is to > identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share > certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly. > > > > We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human > rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture > and the right to participation in government. We've taken an expansive > definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights > institutions and lawyers around the world take. This includes positive > dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments > are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in > place for the right to be realized. Incidentally, that's why I don't > believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to > the internet or to communication. The sentiments and demands expressed by > these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system. In > my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding > what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions > of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions. And, as > Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing > understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with > them actually means in practice. > > > > The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this > effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is > being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case > law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done. It is > taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it > is firmly rooted in the international human rights system. In this way, if > the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights > standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions. > > > > Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues, > we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the > 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the > internet' are rooted in human rights standards. These are the most widely > accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in > reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with > them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them. > > > > I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts > on the work we're doing, and am keen to explore opportunities to > collaborate on further research on any of these issues. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Lisa > > > > *From:* bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto: > bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Max Senges > *Sent:* 06 August 2008 17:36 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org > *Subject:* [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > dear lisa and all > > Lisa wrote: > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and > Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to > frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in > the fall. > > It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research > undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG. > > Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research? > > Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get > in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication > > best > max > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hallo all > > Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the > appropriate > institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues > quite often. > > They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work. Here is their URL > http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml > > Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here > in South > Africa. I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the > draft bill was badly > not well conceived and very controversial. > > I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights > commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public > awareness of > the issue. > > It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable. > Personally, Rui, I > would just ignore it. > > Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and > internet > governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS. As you say > there is a > lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what > the > implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work > with on > specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality. APC > tries to adopt > this approach in our access work. > > I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this > terrain > enough, altough there are exceptions. > > Anriette > > > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100 > From: "Lisa Horner" > To: , > "Rui Correia" > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing > ticket scam] > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" > partners.co.uk> > > > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the > > South African Human Rights Commission? The SA bill of rights states > > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that > > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes > > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation > > in SA? > > > > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be > > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and > > institutions are usually absent from the debate. Human rights and > > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only > > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age > > of 'globalisation'. Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt > > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and > > responsibilities. However, there's still a lot of work to be done in > > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing > > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and > > the internet. I wonder if engaging directly with national human > > rights institutions is one way of starting that process? > > > > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns > > around rights are a-historical. Similarly, I think that they should > > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human > > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales. > > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based > > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal > > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human > > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights... > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong > man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit > belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short > again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and > spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with > those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Bill-of-Rights mailing list > Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 14 21:18:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:18:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to the MAG on visibility of 'rights References: <48a218b9.1fba720a.2847.ffff8601@mx.google.com> <48A0E690.D992BFA8@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF3@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A25A0B.79ABAB0B@ix.netcom.com> <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF@ix.netcom.com> <259sLAdaffpIFA2V@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <48A4D960.3D9BF038@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Ok, good. Thanks for the clarification... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48A4BECC.1D85F0AF at ix.netcom.com>, at 16:25:01 on Thu, 14 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > I am not sure that what your seem to be getting at aids > >greatly to Visibility. Wikipedia has a reather checkered > >credability history, and as such may not be the best or > >even a good means by which for achiving the visibility > >goal or even improvment... > > Obviously I didn't mean literally Wikipedia [tm] which is why I said "a > sort of wikipedia for governance issues". > > And it was someone else who suggested it might be useful for "the IGF" > (whatever that is) to publish proceedings of various fringe groups. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sat Aug 16 01:33:44 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:33:44 +0300 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> Message-ID: <20080816053344.GA11263@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:51:32PM +0100, Roland Perry (roland at internetpolicyagency.com) wrote: > Oddly enough, the original plan was to have a GSM card that was the same > size as a credit card, I still remember those. If memory serves, current small SIMs became prevalent around mid-90s. > and which you inserted in any phone. > The billing would be to the card, not the phone. That's how it still works for the most part around here (in Finland). Operator-locked phones are rare. > Then business models changed so that hardware became locked to the > SIM, and the lack of need (by then) to regularly swap SIMMs meant > they could be made much smaller. I doubt that was the reason. Rather smaller SIMs simply allowed phones to be made smaller. That business model change has not been quite universal yet, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't common in any GSM market in mid-90s when the smaller SIM format was introduced (certainly not here). Add the fact given that the biggest player in GSM market, Nokia, is still fighting against that business model, they'd hardly wanted to make SIM-changing any harder. As I said, in Finland most phones are still sold without SIMs, and vice versa, and since you can even keep your phone number when changing operators, competition between phone operators is fierce and call prices cheap. And yes, that means people change SIMs a lot and their small size has not become a problem. But, back to the topic: I certainly thin that all kinds of mechanical interfaces should be standardized in such a way that the orientation of any connection should be as obvious as possible, even when you can't see what you're doing (whether due to blindness or darkness). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 16 03:50:43 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:50:43 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <20080816053344.GA11263@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> <20080816053344.GA11263@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: In message <20080816053344.GA11263 at hamsu.tarvainen.info>, at 08:33:44 on Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Tapani Tarvainen writes >> Then business models changed so that hardware became locked to the >> SIM, and the lack of need (by then) to regularly swap SIMMs meant >> they could be made much smaller. > >I doubt that was the reason. Rather smaller SIMs simply allowed >phones to be made smaller. I think there would have been a smaller SIM introduced eventually, maybe about the size of a Sony memory card. There would be space for a slot for one of those in most designs - indeed there *is* such a slot on most camera-phones. But the idea of a phone where you could change the SIM very easily was lost a very long time ago - many require you to disassemble the case! >That business model change has not been quite universal yet It wanders around. Today in the UK there's been a resurgence of cheap pay-as-you-go phones that are easily 'unlocked' from their original network. >Nokia, is still fighting against that business model, they'd hardly >wanted to make SIM-changing any harder. For years I had a Nokia 5130, which is clearly designed for ease of SIM swapping - and a cunning combined rear case/battery. But the later 8210 is much harder - a fiddly case to take apart as well as needing to remove the internal battery. >But, back to the topic: I certainly thin that all kinds of mechanical >interfaces should be standardized in such a way that the orientation >of any connection should be as obvious as possible, even when you >can't see what you're doing (whether due to blindness or darkness). We can probably learn a lot from the memory-card industry. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 16 05:12:10 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:42:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations Message-ID: <20080816091220.6DC45A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> The enclosed document was sent yesterday to the IGF secretariat as IGC's input to the September consultations of the IGF. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC's input for IGF's Sept consultations.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13611 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 Sat Aug 16 10:56:51 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:56:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E1A0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Lisa, Thanks for your very useful and comprehensive response, I am a bit pressed for time and will try to review it carefully and respond soon. Will you be at the IGF consultation in Geneva? A good time perhaps to take this up. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:10 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > Hi Milton > > I'm not an expert in these issues - merely hoping that those who are get > more involved. You ask really important questions, and more research > and policy work in this area could be really productive. > > My thoughts in response to your questions below... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 13 August 2008 23:17 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: RE: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > Hi, Lisa: > Some questions for you... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already > > in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels > > from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge > > is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're > > capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging > > issues concerning internet communications. > > How would you relate to the fact that a clearly defined right to > privacy, articulated in both national laws and in international norms > and instruments, is abrogated by the ICANN Whois obligation? Two prongs > to this question. First, how and why do you think that happened? Second, > why is there so much interest in general declarations of rights amogn > civil society and so little interest and involvement in the actual ICANN > processes that could affect how that right is translated into reality in > the context of the Internet domain name system? > > In answer to the first question, as I understand it, the Whois > negotiations have been dominated by the corporate sector, with IP > lawyers to defend trademark interests. Put crudely, money and power led > to IP rights trumping privacy rights. Also exactly what you highlighted > before - a lack of understanding of rights and how to balance them, and > the global IP regime's interpretation of IP rights in favour of > corporate rights holders. > > I think your second question also in part answers the first. A lack of > involvement in ICANN processes is the result of a lack of understanding > about said processes and the issues they address, coupled with (a > perception of?) their technical nature and intangibility. I know this > lack of participation is something that you and others are trying to > address, and I applaud your efforts. I also understand it to be the > result of ICANN structures of participation, proposals for the reform of > which I think have been hotly debated on this list. I've been meaning > to try and engage more for a while, but as always, time is an issue. > But if you think participation from the likes of me would be useful, > tell me when and how and I'll do my best. > > > I agree that > > constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but > > that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice > > concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights > > (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being > > in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the > > international rights system stems from the moral obligations > > it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always > > need legal enforcement. > > This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human > rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not > the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the > willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. > > It's not just pressure from civil society - it's a process of building > norms and principles amongst all 'stakeholders' (including, as Karl > pointed out, people in general) around shared values. In terms of human > rights - an incomplete and difficult process, but one that has > progressed over the past 60 years. 'Civil society' has a huge role to > play, as do inter-governmental organizations who directly or indirectly > work on rights issues (in other sectors the ILO, WHO; in this sector > UNESCO, ITU...IGF). Law also contributes to the process, and the UN > human rights institutions, regional courts and national courts have all > contributed to the evolving understanding of what human rights > principles mean in theory and in practice. People, through using the > internet and engaging or not engaging in policy processes, are also > contributing. I think an important dynamic to watch is the emergence of > corporate social responsibility principles and policies. Adhering to > positive values-based principles can make good business sense. > > If the question is whether rights are important if civil society can be > mobilized around issues without their codification in international law, > my response is that, if the issue is linked to existing human rights > standards, reference to rights will lend the mobilization moral strength > and, in some instances, legal weight. > > A secondary question: You say "we might not always need legal > enforcement." This assumes that there actually _is_ legal enforcement of > free expression rights in the international context. Here I plead > ignorance but hope you can supply me with information. Can you provide > an example of a case (or more than one case) in which UN institutions, > acting on the basis of international human rights "law" or declarations, > have put an end to an act of censorship or some other form of > suppression of free speech in some country? If I am a blogger in China > or Burma or the U.S. or Venezuela and my rights to free expression are > violated can I petition the UN, or initiate litigation based on > international rights and get that changed? > > There are mechanisms for enforcing human rights at the UN, regional and > national levels. Citizens in states who have signed the Optional > Protocol to the ICCPR can take complaints against the state to the Human > Rights Commission. Whilst the commission can't hand down binding > decisions, it can rule whether a violation of rights has occurred and > make recommendations to the state in question. The European Court can > take citizens' cases once all national options have been exhausted, and > the Inter-American Commission can refer individuals' complaints to the > Inter-American Court. > > Free expression cases have been taken by all of these bodies, with > rulings against the state in many cases. Eg. Conviction on grounds of > state security of an individual participating in a trade union protests > and releasing statements critical of the government in South Korea was > deemed by the human rights commission to be in violation of freedom of > expression. The Inter-American Court ruled against Chile's banning of > Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, prompting reform of Chile's film > censorship/classification regime. > > Bloggers in China and Burma would have very few mechanisms for redress, > having not ratified the ICCPR. Venezuela is in the jurisdiction of the > Inter-American Court and has ratified the ICCPR and the optional > protocol. Surely the first amendment effectively provides protections > for US bloggers? > > Obviously using these mechanisms isn't easy or efficient, but the main > point is that they are there. The next thing to do is to work out how > they can be improved and used better. And, as we've already discussed, > everything is complicated further by the extra-territorial nature of the > internet and the communications it hosts. I'm not an expert in this > area and I don't know of any specific free expression-internet related > cases in the international or national rights courts - can anyone else > shed any light here? Strategic litigation in this area could be very > interesting. On a related note, I would support any effort to get the UN > Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression involved in the IGF. > > Going back to the earlier points around norms and institutions - in my > opinion the fact that the US and many other countries haven't ratified > the optional protocol of the ICPPR doesn't render ratification of the > covenant itself toothless. The moral weight of human rights shouldn't > be underestimated - which I assume is why any reference to them in > official IGF circles is controversial. All the more reason to work with > the rights system rather than shy away from it in my opinion. > > > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human > > rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance > > institution that would be responsible for monitoring > > governance policy and processes and assessing whether they > > uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone > > know if there was any more work done on that front? > > Of course not, if by "additional work" you mean a commitment was made by > the UN system and its member states to invest resources in it and > execute it. The problem is that there is no consensus among states on > what rights exist and even if there was consensus in principle states > would always disagree that they were violating them once so accused. > > No, I didn't mean any work by governments or inter-governmental > organizations. I meant by the proposers of the idea in the first place - > people who were in the HRC. There is a degree of agreement on what > rights exist amongst states who have ratified the covenants of the > international bill of rights. There isn't agreement on what they mean > in relation to internet-based communication, which is where a body like > this could be useful. Of course getting agreement to set an official > body up wouldn't happen overnight. Just wondering if anyone's done any > thinking/action on how to start building an informal one with > sympathetic stakeholders. I guess the Centre for Democracy and > Technology/Berkman/BSR principles are taking a step in this kind of > direction. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sat Aug 16 11:00:14 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:00:14 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In-Reply-To: <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> References: <673897.27157.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C875C@ensms02.iris.se> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C8B21@ensms02.iris.se> <34203.69.70.26.30.1218724093.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7@ensms02.iris.se> <008301c8ff02$ef49d570$0201a8c0@wilkinson> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91E9@ensms02.iris.se> Dear CW, So why not on credit or bank cards also? Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be] Skickat: den 15 augusti 2008 20:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards Well, GSM Cellphone chips have one corner cut off. Otherwise, we would all have trouble knowing which way up to put the chip in the slot. CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Cc: "zara" ; "Kicki Nordström" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards In message <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91B7 at ensms02.iris.se>, at 17:51:30 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Kicki Nordström writes > >You misunderstood me, it is not the slot we need to fix It is, because as you noted, even normally-sighted people have problems knowing which way to insert cards. >it is the card and we do not need to Braille it, Well at least that's consistent with denying that the current embossing is a very good indication of which way up the card is. >only to cut one corner which we hoped to get standardised. It is not that >complicated, but if you cut the card yourself, it will become invalid. I can see why cutting a corner off the card would cause all sorts of problems with card-handling apparatus. Are you really sure a Braille marker on that corner you'd otherwise have cut off isn't a suitable proxy? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 16 11:32:15 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:32:15 -0700 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] ISO standards AND Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F027C91E9@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <01a401c8ffb5$435f1f50$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Perhaps these two threads could be usefully linked by examining rights related research on the "Right to the Internet" including by those with various forms of disability (as well as those lacking access because of location, income, lack of literacy and so on)? 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 maxsenges at gmail.com Sat Aug 16 13:04:39 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:04:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E1A0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E1A0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0808161004v34762f1fr561582d528a66e1f@mail.gmail.com> hi milton some of us who are doing research on Internet Rights and a rights based approach to IG plan to meet 25 Aug 9 am PST = 18 pm Swiss/Austria (before our monthly IBR skype conf-call). the idea is to share what our research interesests are, to find synergies and possibly align efforts. you are very welcome to join best max On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Lisa, > Thanks for your very useful and comprehensive response, I am a bit > pressed for time and will try to review it carefully and respond soon. > Will you be at the IGF consultation in Geneva? A good time perhaps to > take this up. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:10 PM > > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > Hi Milton > > > > I'm not an expert in these issues - merely hoping that those who are > get > > more involved. You ask really important questions, and more research > > and policy work in this area could be really productive. > > > > My thoughts in response to your questions below... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: 13 August 2008 23:17 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > > Subject: RE: [governance] [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research > > > > Hi, Lisa: > > Some questions for you... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > > I agree with Jaco that the existing institutions are already > > > in place to protect and interpret rights at various levels > > > from the sub-national to international. IMHO, the challenge > > > is to bring these institutions up to standard so that they're > > > capable of doing this job in relation to new and emerging > > > issues concerning internet communications. > > > > How would you relate to the fact that a clearly defined right to > > privacy, articulated in both national laws and in international norms > > and instruments, is abrogated by the ICANN Whois obligation? Two > prongs > > to this question. First, how and why do you think that happened? > Second, > > why is there so much interest in general declarations of rights amogn > > civil society and so little interest and involvement in the actual > ICANN > > processes that could affect how that right is translated into reality > in > > the context of the Internet domain name system? > > > > In answer to the first question, as I understand it, the Whois > > negotiations have been dominated by the corporate sector, with IP > > lawyers to defend trademark interests. Put crudely, money and power > led > > to IP rights trumping privacy rights. Also exactly what you > highlighted > > before - a lack of understanding of rights and how to balance them, > and > > the global IP regime's interpretation of IP rights in favour of > > corporate rights holders. > > > > I think your second question also in part answers the first. A lack > of > > involvement in ICANN processes is the result of a lack of > understanding > > about said processes and the issues they address, coupled with (a > > perception of?) their technical nature and intangibility. I know this > > lack of participation is something that you and others are trying to > > address, and I applaud your efforts. I also understand it to be the > > result of ICANN structures of participation, proposals for the reform > of > > which I think have been hotly debated on this list. I've been meaning > > to try and engage more for a while, but as always, time is an issue. > > But if you think participation from the likes of me would be useful, > > tell me when and how and I'll do my best. > > > > > I agree that > > > constitutional amendments are unlikely in many countries, but > > > that doesn't prevent communications policy and practice > > > concerning issues that might seem unrelated to rights > > > (interoperability, commercial net neutrality...) from being > > > in line with human rights standards. Part of the power of the > > > international rights system stems from the moral obligations > > > it places on people to uphold rights - we might not always > > > need legal enforcement. > > > > This is interesting. You are talking about political pressure by human > > rights advocates, are you not? In this case what really matters is not > > the articulation of the right in an international legal text, but the > > willingness of civil society activists to mobilize around the issue. > > > > It's not just pressure from civil society - it's a process of building > > norms and principles amongst all 'stakeholders' (including, as Karl > > pointed out, people in general) around shared values. In terms of > human > > rights - an incomplete and difficult process, but one that has > > progressed over the past 60 years. 'Civil society' has a huge role to > > play, as do inter-governmental organizations who directly or > indirectly > > work on rights issues (in other sectors the ILO, WHO; in this sector > > UNESCO, ITU...IGF). Law also contributes to the process, and the UN > > human rights institutions, regional courts and national courts have > all > > contributed to the evolving understanding of what human rights > > principles mean in theory and in practice. People, through using the > > internet and engaging or not engaging in policy processes, are also > > contributing. I think an important dynamic to watch is the emergence > of > > corporate social responsibility principles and policies. Adhering to > > positive values-based principles can make good business sense. > > > > If the question is whether rights are important if civil society can > be > > mobilized around issues without their codification in international > law, > > my response is that, if the issue is linked to existing human rights > > standards, reference to rights will lend the mobilization moral > strength > > and, in some instances, legal weight. > > > > A secondary question: You say "we might not always need legal > > enforcement." This assumes that there actually _is_ legal enforcement > of > > free expression rights in the international context. Here I plead > > ignorance but hope you can supply me with information. Can you provide > > an example of a case (or more than one case) in which UN institutions, > > acting on the basis of international human rights "law" or > declarations, > > have put an end to an act of censorship or some other form of > > suppression of free speech in some country? If I am a blogger in China > > or Burma or the U.S. or Venezuela and my rights to free expression are > > violated can I petition the UN, or initiate litigation based on > > international rights and get that changed? > > > > There are mechanisms for enforcing human rights at the UN, regional > and > > national levels. Citizens in states who have signed the Optional > > Protocol to the ICCPR can take complaints against the state to the > Human > > Rights Commission. Whilst the commission can't hand down binding > > decisions, it can rule whether a violation of rights has occurred and > > make recommendations to the state in question. The European Court can > > take citizens' cases once all national options have been exhausted, > and > > the Inter-American Commission can refer individuals' complaints to the > > Inter-American Court. > > > > Free expression cases have been taken by all of these bodies, with > > rulings against the state in many cases. Eg. Conviction on grounds of > > state security of an individual participating in a trade union > protests > > and releasing statements critical of the government in South Korea was > > deemed by the human rights commission to be in violation of freedom of > > expression. The Inter-American Court ruled against Chile's banning of > > Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, prompting reform of Chile's film > > censorship/classification regime. > > > > Bloggers in China and Burma would have very few mechanisms for > redress, > > having not ratified the ICCPR. Venezuela is in the jurisdiction of > the > > Inter-American Court and has ratified the ICCPR and the optional > > protocol. Surely the first amendment effectively provides protections > > for US bloggers? > > > > Obviously using these mechanisms isn't easy or efficient, but the main > > point is that they are there. The next thing to do is to work out how > > they can be improved and used better. And, as we've already > discussed, > > everything is complicated further by the extra-territorial nature of > the > > internet and the communications it hosts. I'm not an expert in this > > area and I don't know of any specific free expression-internet related > > cases in the international or national rights courts - can anyone else > > shed any light here? Strategic litigation in this area could be very > > interesting. On a related note, I would support any effort to get the > UN > > Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression involved in the IGF. > > > > Going back to the earlier points around norms and institutions - in my > > opinion the fact that the US and many other countries haven't ratified > > the optional protocol of the ICPPR doesn't render ratification of the > > covenant itself toothless. The moral weight of human rights shouldn't > > be underestimated - which I assume is why any reference to them in > > official IGF circles is controversial. All the more reason to work > with > > the rights system rather than shy away from it in my opinion. > > > > > I was interested in an idea put forward by the WSIS human > > > rights caucus about the creation of an internet governance > > > institution that would be responsible for monitoring > > > governance policy and processes and assessing whether they > > > uphold or undermine minimum rights standards. Does anyone > > > know if there was any more work done on that front? > > > > Of course not, if by "additional work" you mean a commitment was made > by > > the UN system and its member states to invest resources in it and > > execute it. The problem is that there is no consensus among states on > > what rights exist and even if there was consensus in principle states > > would always disagree that they were violating them once so accused. > > > > No, I didn't mean any work by governments or inter-governmental > > organizations. I meant by the proposers of the idea in the first place > - > > people who were in the HRC. There is a degree of agreement on what > > rights exist amongst states who have ratified the covenants of the > > international bill of rights. There isn't agreement on what they mean > > in relation to internet-based communication, which is where a body > like > > this could be useful. Of course getting agreement to set an official > > body up wouldn't happen overnight. Just wondering if anyone's done > any > > thinking/action on how to start building an informal one with > > sympathetic stakeholders. I guess the Centre for Democracy and > > Technology/Berkman/BSR principles are taking a step in this kind of > > direction. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 17 04:58:15 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:58:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <20080816091220.6DC45A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080816091220.6DC45A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks. Did you also send a note about lack of the MAG's rotation? Adam At 2:42 PM +0530 8/16/08, Parminder wrote: >The enclosed document was sent yesterday to the >IGF secretariat as IGC¹s input to the September >consultations of the IGF. Parminder > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGC's input >for IGF'#62B4CA.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0062B4CA) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 16 07:39:11 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:39:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations References: <20080816091220.6DC45A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A6BC5F.2B907446@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Please excust the late chime in. I like it! Nicely done. Now it looks to me as though we need to get started on getting the WG's set up, so that the actual real document can begin to take shape. Parminder wrote: > The enclosed document was sent yesterday to the IGF secretariat as > IGC’s input to the September consultations of the IGF. 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 17 05:55:08 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:25:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080817095724.E3D7767855@smtp1.electricembers.net> Adam > Did you also send a note about lack of the MAG's rotation? No, I held it back because there were already two different things up for IGC's consideration - support to letter of DC on Bill of Rights, and the IGC's own short inout to the Septemeber consultation - both with a 15th August deadline. Putting another item up at the same time for IGC's consideration I thought would be a bit confusing (though three voices of support - Milton, Ian and Carlos have already come), especially since this letter was not to the MAG but directed at the UN SG and his advisorial system. And this didn’t have the 15th deadline. I am putting this letter up now for IGC's consideration. It is open for comments till 11 AM GMT on Monday and then for 'yes' or 'no' comment between 11 AM GMT Monday and 11 AM Wednesday, on which date, if it is found to have IGC support it will be sent out. Below is the text of the letter. Parminder (Begins) 20, August 2008 Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news regarding the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and accommodation arrangements in such a short period of time. It will be even more difficult for new members, up to one third of the group, and particularly for those from developing countries and from civil society. We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage. Thank you, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. (Ends) > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 2:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations > > Parminder, thanks. > > Did you also send a note about lack of the MAG's rotation? > > Adam > > > > > At 2:42 PM +0530 8/16/08, Parminder wrote: > >The enclosed document was sent yesterday to the > >IGF secretariat as IGC¹s input to the September > >consultations of the IGF. Parminder > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGC's input > >for IGF'#62B4CA.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0062B4CA) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 17 07:24:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:54:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITfC's input to Sept consultations Message-ID: <20080817112656.912F4A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All I am enclosing a contribution prepared by my organization, 'IT for Change', for IGF's September consultations. It is titled "Is 'enhanced cooperation' a legitimate topic for discussion at the IGF?". Comments - online or offline - are welcome. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC's input for IGF's Sept consultations.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 67867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 16 20:52:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:52:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [ga] The Future of ICANN: A Series of Regional Consultative Meetings References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D788D60D34B1@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <48A77633.12F8C8C8@ix.netcom.com> Glen and all, Well this is good news. But it's a bit to late IMO. ICANN should have done this 8 years ago when it was first suggested as round table discussions. Of course those efforts were resoundingly ignored and refused. From where our members point of view, stakeholders all, Institutional Confidence has greatly declined, and continues to decline at an ever excellerating rate. Ergo where ever you and/or ICANN is getting it's information must be living in a bottle of very small proportions. I guess the old adage, hear no evil, see no evil has also become an ICANN mantra as well... We do believe and have seen for some time now that a tiny few special interest groups such as Registries, registrars, Domain Name Tasters, Domain Name Speculators, and Intellectual Property lobbyists have been very supportive on many of ICANN's policies. Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > > The Future of ICANN: A Series of Regional Consultative Meetings > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15aug08-en.htm > > 15 August 2008 > > A series of regional consultative meetings about crucial changes to ICANN will take place over the next three months in an effort to reach out to and involve the organization's global stakeholders. > > Four dates had been set so far*, with at least one other due to be announced shortly. They are: > > Tuesday, 19 August: Montevideo, Uruguay > Tuesday, 26 August: Christchurch, New Zealand. > Monday, 15 September: Geneva, Switzerland > Tuesday, 30 September: Washington DC, United States of America > A further date in Africa will be added shortly. > The meetings will be a part of ICANN's Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) consultation that was opened in June following the community's response to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that ICANN has with the US Department of Commerce. > > To date, three documents have been produced to guide the IIC consultation: a Transition Action Plan; an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document; and an FAQ. All three documents have been produced by the President's Strategy Committee (PSC) of ICANN and they are currently under review by the PSC following a first public comment period that closed on 31 July. > > The regional consultative meetings will explain the IIC consultation and its aims, and encourage discussion and debate surrounding a number of measures for improving confidence in ICANN both as an organization and as a model for coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers. At least one member of the PSC and one ICANN staff person will be present at each meeting and will help manage it. > > More details on the meetings and the consultation can be found online at http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/regional-meetings.htm. Any questions about the meetings or process should be sent to iic at icann.org. > > ICANN encourages all those in the community to try to take part in one of the sessions and looks forward to engaging with its stakeholders over the next few months. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * With the exception of Washington, the dates coincide with existing meetings where Internet community members and those interested in ICANN issues are already expected to attend. > > Glen de Saint G�ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 18 03:26:31 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:26:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] NTIA & DNSSEC Message-ID: More on adult supervision.... http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/experts-accuse.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 18 04:25:43 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:25:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <20080817095724.E3D7767855@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080817095724.E3D7767855@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A93207.9080109@panos-ao.org> Dear Parminder Thanks for all your efforts. 1) To be more specific about the impact of the slowness in the annoucement of the new MAG, instead of this phrasing: We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused by these delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the IGF was less effective than it might have been as a result) and ensure any future rotation is announced in good time. I suggest this one: "We hope the Secretary General will take note of this concern and act accordingly to announce the new Multistakholder Advisory Group as quickly as possible to avoid further delays. The renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and it brought about several problems for the organisation of the IGF meeting in Rio. We also hope any future rotation will be announced in good time". I suggest we use that section as the last one (after the sentence below, if it's kept). 2) Instead of this: "Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal capacity, many may lack institutional support for their work on the MAG and find these delays difficult and personally costly to manage." I would suggest this one: "Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal capacity; due to delays many may lack institutional support for their work on the MAG and find it personally difficult and costly to manage." But I'm not so sure we should keep this specific comment since it's only one of the consequences. Apart from that, I'm ok with the text. PS : I'm also ok with the other text sent. Regards KL > (Begins) > 20, August 2008 > Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer: > > We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of news regarding > the announcement the new multi-stakeholder advisory group > (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > > The next IGF consultation will begin in less than five weeks. It is > extremely difficult and costly to make necessary travel and accommodation > arrangements in such a short period of time. It will be even more difficult > for new members, up to one third of the group, and particularly for those > from developing countries and from civil society. > > We hope the Secretary General will take note of the problems caused by these > delays (renewal of the MAG in 2007 was equally slow and the IGF was less > effective than it might have been as a result) and ensure any future > rotation is announced in good time. > > Please note MAG members serve as volunteers and in their personal capacity, > many may lack institutional support for their work on the MAG and find these > delays difficult and personally costly to manage. > > Thank you, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > (Ends) > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 2:28 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGCs' input for IGF consultations >> >> Parminder, thanks. >> >> Did you also send a note about lack of the MAG's rotation? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> At 2:42 PM +0530 8/16/08, Parminder wrote: >> >>> The enclosed document was sent yesterday to the >>> IGF secretariat as IGC¹s input to the September >>> consultations of the IGF. Parminder >>> >>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGC's input >>> for IGF'#62B4CA.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0062B4CA) >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Ken Lohento ICT Programme Coordinator Panos Institute West Africa www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.haayo.org Tel : +221 33 849 16 66 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 18 09:19:16 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:19:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sept 12 deadline for papers for the Hyderabad meeting, Sept 30 special needs Message-ID: Hi, More deadlines. September 12 for any papers to be submitted as input for the Hyderabad meeting. Papers submitted by that date will be reflected in the usual synthesis paper prepared by the Secretariat. And, event organizers and participants with special needs are requested to communicate their requirements to the secretariat by 30 September. Secretariat email address igf at unog.ch Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 18 13:27:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:27:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights - privacy, ICANN, whois In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA42@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > My thoughts in response to your questions below... > On Whois, Lisa wrote: > In answer to the first question, as I understand it, the Whois > negotiations have been dominated by the corporate sector, with IP > lawyers to defend trademark interests. Put crudely, money > and power led to IP rights trumping privacy rights. Also exactly > what you highlighted before - a lack of understanding of rights and > how to balance them, and the global IP regime's interpretation of IP > rights in favour of corporate rights holders. There is, to be blunt, no ambiguity about the contradiction between Whois and existing data protection principles. There is simply an unwillingness to confront it politically on the part of certain key actors, notably the EU. > I think your second question also in part answers the first. > A lack of involvement in ICANN processes is the result of a lack of > understanding about said processes and the issues they address, coupled with (a > perception of?) their technical nature and intangibility. That may be part of the problem. Let's distinguish first between understanding the processes of ICANN, which I agree is pretty difficult, and understanding the issues, which in the Whois case is pretty simple. The only way to understand the process, really, is to get involved in it. And the real barrier, in my experience, comes from CS groups not being willing or able to commit the time resources to sustained involvement. Even if they don't get involved actively, simply joining the noncommercial users constituency (NCUC) of ICANN and increasing its membership has some kind of an effect, by showing the rest of the policy community that CS is broadly representative, and creating a latent capacity for action on more urgent matters should they arise. So, CS groups could and should easily join NCUC either as organizations http://www.ncdnhc.org/NCUC-Membership.txt or as individuals http://www.ncdnhc.org/individual-memb-provisional.txt > I know this > lack of participation is something that you and others are trying to > address, and I applaud your efforts. I also understand it to be the > result of ICANN structures of participation, proposals for > the reform of which I think have been hotly debated on this list. ICANN is on the verge of increasing the representation of civil society in domain name policy. This blog post discusses that: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/7/31/3817694.html Again, what we fear now is that CS groups will not make use of the opportunity. Long term this will work against us by providing an excuse to limit or reduce our representation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 18 13:55:48 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:55:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] On norms and rights, you said: > It's not just pressure from civil society - it's a process of building > norms and principles amongst all 'stakeholders' (including, as Karl > pointed out, people in general) around shared values. In > terms of human rights - an incomplete and difficult process, but one that has > progressed over the past 60 years. Yes, here is where we may disagree. I agree that some of these documents serve a norm-building function, but I don't necessarily agree that there has been a lot of progress over the past 60 years. In particular, the concept of what is a human right has become diluted and in some ways impaired by proliferating, inconsistent and sometimes even incoherent claims over the last 6 decades. Parminder and I had a long debate about the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic instance of the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment among CS types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really damaging to the realization of real human rights. Those differences are philosophical and are not going to be resolved here, or resolved quickly, but the least we can do is recognize that there are different conceptions of rights at work, and avoid trying to assert some kind of hegemony by claiming the mantle of "civil society" for one view when in fact notions of rights are ideologically conditioned. > Free expression cases have been taken by all of these bodies, with > rulings against the state in many cases. Eg. Conviction on grounds of > state security of an individual participating in a trade > union protests > and releasing statements critical of the government in South Korea was > deemed by the human rights commission to be in violation of freedom of > expression. The Inter-American Court ruled against Chile's banning of > Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, prompting reform of Chile's film > censorship/classification regime. Great! Good to know about these cases. I would view these as precedents for mobilizations that we might want to pursue in the future related to Internet. For example, bringing a Whois case might raise the profile of that issue. > No, I didn't mean any work by governments or inter-governmental > organizations. I meant by the proposers of the idea in the > first place - people who were in the HRC. Did Meryem answer you? She would know. > There is a degree of agreement > on what rights exist amongst states who have ratified the covenants of the > international bill of rights. There isn't agreement on what they mean > in relation to internet-based communication, which is where a > body like this could be useful. Agree that a lot of work needs to be done there. For example, a forthcoming paper from IGP will try to make the case for how Regional Internet address registries need to start paying attention to rights issues in how they manage the address space. (There is an increasing focus on IP addresses as an identification mechanism and possible control of routing as a means of enforcing policy) We expect many far-sighted RIR people to be sympathetic but also a lot of conceptual resistance to be encountered, as the techie commuity often fails to understand how what it does affects rights and policy, and the people interested in rights and governance lack the detailed understanding of Internet critical resource management mechanisms to fully appreciate how rights issues are entwined in them. 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 avri at psg.com Mon Aug 18 14:27:33 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:27:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder and I had a long debate about > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic instance > of > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment > among CS > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really > damaging to the realization of real human rights. ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must confess, from a philosophical point of view. being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have gotten to a point where i think that we fall into a problem between the notion of basic human rights and those that are derivative from other the basic human rights. i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it constitutes agreed language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to achieving the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. 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 Mon Aug 18 18:10:05 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:10:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Avri, thanks for pondering it. Just to recall what my objection is, and it's important to be clear about this: * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? If my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, which declared it? (hah!) * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups d'etat, etc.). In such cases, it is very clear who the right is claimed against and who it constrains or obligates. So, please do not think that by denying the existence of a "right to development" I am unconcerned about the need for economic and social development in LDCs or elsewhere. I just don't think the concept makes any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:28 PM > To: Governance List > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > > > On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Parminder and I had a long debate about > > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic > instance > > of > > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that > > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment > > among CS > > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and > > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really > > damaging to the realization of real human rights. > > > ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i > have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must > confess, from a philosophical point of view. > > being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have > gotten to a > point where i think that we fall into a problem between the > notion of > basic human rights and those that are derivative from other > the basic > human rights. > > i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict > philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view > anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it > constitutes agreed > language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into > account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). > > this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as > important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to > achieving > the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. > > > 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 17 21:11:05 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:11:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of rights, will industry consider: Doubts On Yahoo's Human Rights Code of Conduct Message-ID: <48A8CC29.5F5D0A3E@ix.netcom.com> All, In keeping with a proposed Internet "Bill of Rights: http://www.thestandard.com/people/i-lamont550036 Ian Lamont writes "The US Senate has been pushing American technology companies to work with rights groups to develop a human rights code of conduct, which would help to guide their overseas activities. Yahoo now claims that it has established http://ycorpblog.com/2008/08/14/a-new-kind-of-code-coming-this-fall/ the 'core components' of a global code of conduct, and a more complete version will be ready this fall. However, the Industry Standard notes that http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/15/u-s-senate-demanding-promises-companies-can-keep there's a fundamental flaw with such efforts: US law is not world law. Following the local laws is a requirement of doing business in any country, and conflicts between corporate ethics and the law of the land in which these corporations do business are inevitable. The US Senate's push for such a code was prompted by a number of incidents, including http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/19/2141244&tid=95 Yahoo's complicity in the arrest of Chinese dissidents and a Chinese journalist." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 17 21:25:34 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:25:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] NTIA & DNSSEC References: Message-ID: <48A8CF8E.CFBD33A@ix.netcom.com> William and all, Sorry Bill, but this is a rehash of old news. However it is clear that DNSSEC which has been around for around 7 years, needs to be seriously considered to aid in managing DNS appropriately. Yet, ICANN until very recently hasn't been very enthusiastic in implementing DNSSEC and still only has it only *partly* implemented on 3 root servers thus far which further demonstrates the ongoing need for further and significant need for DOC/NTIA adult supervision. William Drake wrote: > More on adult supervision.... > > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/experts-accuse.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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 17 21:49:42 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:49:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A8D535.E3FD887A@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, Rights Avri, and never disputable. To suggest such is an exercise in illogic of monumental proportions... Rights either exist and are recognized, or they are not. In America we have "Enailiable Rights" that phrase is self defining, it is not disputable legally. It is often disputed on the edges, and as when a dispute is attempted, it is usually resoundingly defeated, and pardon the pun, rightly so! Recent Supreme court case regarding 2nd amendment right to bare arms is such an example of the upholding properly of "Enailiable Rights". I believe this right *May* extend to the Internet as well, given DDOS attacks, IPhijacking, Domain Name Tasting, IDtheft due to poor security policies and practices, Whois security breaches and accuracy dificiencies, Fast-Fluxing, Domain Name Hijacking by Registrars a la RegistryFly, Godaddy, and Enom, Phishing, ect., ect... Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Parminder and I had a long debate about > > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic instance > > of > > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that > > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment > > among CS > > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and > > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really > > damaging to the realization of real human rights. > > ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i > have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must > confess, from a philosophical point of view. > > being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have gotten to a > point where i think that we fall into a problem between the notion of > basic human rights and those that are derivative from other the basic > human rights. > > i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict > philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view > anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it constitutes agreed > language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into > account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). > > this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as > important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to achieving > the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 17 21:55:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:55:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48A8D6AA.3CD4E546@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, My remarks and observations below Miltons... Milton L Mueller wrote: > Avri, thanks for pondering it. > Just to recall what my objection is, and it's important to be clear > about this: > > * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" > implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated > to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? If > my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully > capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, > which declared it? (hah!) Very good point. Certainly we could not count on ICANN either! Double (hah!) > > > * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have > other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic > activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is > an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft > of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups > d'etat, etc.). In such cases, it is very clear who the right is claimed > against and who it constrains or obligates. Exactly, and nicely stated! > > > So, please do not think that by denying the existence of a "right to > development" I am unconcerned about the need for economic and social > development in LDCs or elsewhere. I just don't think the concept makes > any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything. It's assertion accomplishes only a likelyhood of negitive informational warfair, which we have been seeing more and more of over the past 5-6 years... > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:28 PM > > To: Governance List > > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > > > > > > > On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Parminder and I had a long debate about > > > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic > > instance > > > of > > > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that > > > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment > > > among CS > > > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and > > > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really > > > damaging to the realization of real human rights. > > > > > > ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i > > have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must > > confess, from a philosophical point of view. > > > > being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have > > gotten to a > > point where i think that we fall into a problem between the > > notion of > > basic human rights and those that are derivative from other > > the basic > > human rights. > > > > i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict > > philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view > > anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it > > constitutes agreed > > language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into > > account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). > > > > this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as > > important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to > > achieving > > the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. > > > > > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 18 21:06:56 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:06:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <48A8D535.E3FD887A@ix.netcom.com> References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A8D535.E3FD887A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <13C51444-7D47-4AE8-B9A0-3F4FDE9209D9@Malcolm.id.au> On 18/08/2008, at 9:49 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Rights Avri, and never disputable. To suggest such is an exercise > in illogic of monumental proportions... Rights either exist and are > recognized, or they are not. In America we have "Enailiable Rights" > that phrase is self defining, it is not disputable legally. It is > often > disputed on the edges, and as when a dispute is attempted, it is > usually resoundingly defeated, and pardon the pun, rightly so! > > Recent Supreme court case regarding 2nd amendment right to > bare arms is such an example of the upholding properly of > "Enailiable Rights". I believe this right *May* extend to the > Internet as well, given DDOS attacks, IPhijacking, Domain > Name Tasting, IDtheft due to poor security policies and > practices, Whois security breaches and accuracy dificiencies, > Fast-Fluxing, Domain Name Hijacking by Registrars a la RegistryFly, > Godaddy, and Enom, Phishing, ect., ect... Excuse me for saying so, but your thinking is extremely woolly here. Rights are indeed disputable, depending on their source. In particular, the example you give of the right to bear arms under the US Constitution is certainly a legal right (in America), but is it generally also considered to be a (universal) moral right? Absolutely not! In fact you have chosen the most pilloried US constitutional right of all as your example. Legally, the only universal rights are those contained in international law such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Morally, the content of human rights can be posited either by deontological (eg. Kantian) or teleological (eg. utilitarian) means. Whilst the former is predominant (and philosophically grounds the International Covenant), in neither case is their content undisputable. That is a dangerous proposition. Going back to first principles, any universal human right posited by deontological means must be traced back to the fundamental human autonomy that is assumed to flow from their state of nature and be intuitively accepted by all in (at least liberal) society. These include the inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" referred to in your Declaration of Independence, to which you have obliquely referred. Much more disputable as moral rights are the legal rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Whilst in favour of such rights (eg. by Habermas) it is stated that an individual cannot act as an equally autonomous member of liberal society unless they are fed, clothed and educated, it is arguable that this does not require, for example, a human right to paid holidays, as the Covenant posits. The right to development that Milton questions is in the same category, only more so because not only is it debatable as a moral right, but it is not even a legal right under international law. In my view the right to development is an aspiration rather than a right, but of course it is politically convenient for those advocating for it to clothe their aspirations in the language of universal rights. -- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 19 00:22:26 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:22:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080819042226.GA4038@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:10:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have > other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic > activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is > an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft > of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups > d'etat, etc.). Yes. Note that "classic" Human Rights are all exactly such negative rights. Freedom of speech does not mean someone is obligated to provide you with free TV time, but that you can express your ideas with whatever means you have and nobody may stop you. Right to life only means nobody may kill you, not that everybody must do everything they can to keep you alive. That is no accident. As you observe, positive rights really makes sense only with an explicitly specified other party. They cannot meaningfully be asserted against "everybody". In a national context, state is often implied as the provider of such rights, but internationally that doesn't work. Any Bill of Rights should stick to negative rights, negative though that term sounds, lest it become meaningless, impossible to implement and eventually ignored. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 03:40:07 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:40:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <4d976d8e0808060935p28f87064m227f89af187fa9ff@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7C88@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <489FC7CA.4CA125DD@ix.netcom.com> <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48A8D535.E3FD887A@ix.netcom.com> <13C51444-7D47-4AE8-B9A0-3F4FDE9209D9@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <48A92757.A764534F@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy and all, Thank you for your comments, thoughts in response/reaction to mine to Avri. The remainder of my response are below Jeremy's... Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/08/2008, at 9:49 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > > Rights Avri, and never disputable. To suggest such is an exercise > > in illogic of monumental proportions... Rights either exist and are > > recognized, or they are not. In America we have "Enailiable Rights" > > that phrase is self defining, it is not disputable legally. It is > > often > > disputed on the edges, and as when a dispute is attempted, it is > > usually resoundingly defeated, and pardon the pun, rightly so! > > > > Recent Supreme court case regarding 2nd amendment right to > > bare arms is such an example of the upholding properly of > > "Enailiable Rights". I believe this right *May* extend to the > > Internet as well, given DDOS attacks, IPhijacking, Domain > > Name Tasting, IDtheft due to poor security policies and > > practices, Whois security breaches and accuracy dificiencies, > > Fast-Fluxing, Domain Name Hijacking by Registrars a la RegistryFly, > > Godaddy, and Enom, Phishing, ect., ect... > > Excuse me for saying so, but your thinking is extremely woolly here. > Rights are indeed disputable, depending on their source. In > particular, the example you give of the right to bear arms under the > US Constitution is certainly a legal right (in America), but is it > generally also considered to be a (universal) moral right? Absolutely > not! In fact you have chosen the most pilloried US constitutional > right of all as your example. Incorrect in your first sentence, if you will excuse by direct manner or style. A "Right" once established is what it is, ergo a "Right" and as such is and cannot be reasonably disputable, irrespective of the source. It is true that the 2nd amendment is certainly not a universal moral right in a global sense, but the preservation of ones own life is. From where I sit, the US Constitutional right to bare arms directly reflects and relates to the International right to self preservation under extreme circumstances. > > > Legally, the only universal rights are those contained in > international law such as the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights. Morally, the content of human rights can be posited > either by deontological (eg. Kantian) or teleological (eg. > utilitarian) means. Whilst the former is predominant (and > philosophically grounds the International Covenant), in neither case > is their content undisputable. That is a dangerous proposition. The above seems to be mangled logic on it's face to a great degree. As I have already stated in two different ways, the right of self preservation is not disputable irrespective of any political or extra moral consideration. > > > Going back to first principles, any universal human right posited by > deontological means must be traced back to the fundamental human > autonomy that is assumed to flow from their state of nature and be > intuitively accepted by all in (at least liberal) society. These > include the inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of > happiness" referred to in your Declaration of Independence, to which > you have obliquely referred. I think your confuse the US "Bill of Rights" with the Declaration of Independence in respect to "Rights" verses establishment of the United States or America here. Further, as to the rights of life, and liberty, the right to won a bare arms directly applies and in necessary at times and under some circumstances, to "Life and Liberty" as you suggest such, and as you further suggest as "Moral Rights" in any society, liberal or otherwise. > > > Much more disputable as moral rights are the legal rights contained in > the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Whilst in > favour of such rights (eg. by Habermas) it is stated that an > individual cannot act as an equally autonomous member of liberal > society unless they are fed, clothed and educated, it is arguable that > this does not require, for example, a human right to paid holidays, as > the Covenant posits. Agreed here. > > > The right to development that Milton questions is in the same > category, only more so because not only is it debatable as a moral > right, but it is not even a legal right under international law. In > my view the right to development is an aspiration rather than a right, > but of course it is politically convenient for those advocating for it > to clothe their aspirations in the language of universal rights. Sorry but I agree with Milton in that the pursuit of happiness would likely, and I believe surely include by intent, the right to development in a very broad sense. > > > -- > 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}' Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 03:47:18 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:47:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <489FFBFA.47E559D9@ix.netcom.com> <48A10364.A8E04965@ix.netcom.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7CF2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA2A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7D75@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA43@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080819042226.GA4038@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <48A92906.883BA93A@ix.netcom.com> Tapani and all, Interesting concept that we should concentrate on negitive rights. To a degree, I agree. Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:10:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > > > * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have > > other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic > > activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is > > an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft > > of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups > > d'etat, etc.). > > Yes. > > Note that "classic" Human Rights are all exactly such negative rights. > Freedom of speech does not mean someone is obligated to provide > you with free TV time, but that you can express your ideas with > whatever means you have and nobody may stop you. > Right to life only means nobody may kill you, not that everybody > must do everything they can to keep you alive. > > That is no accident. > > As you observe, positive rights really makes sense only with an > explicitly specified other party. They cannot meaningfully be > asserted against "everybody". In a national context, state is > often implied as the provider of such rights, but internationally > that doesn't work. > > Any Bill of Rights should stick to negative rights, negative though > that term sounds, lest it become meaningless, impossible to implement > and eventually ignored. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 19 02:01:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:31:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <20080819042226.GA4038@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20080819060127.D810769F2C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All Rights to me are a set of basic conditions and purposes of political association of human groups. They are basic, and therefore they cannot be each and every thing which is decided by the concerned political community. However at the same time the nature of political association, and of a political community, is not static. Its members today have the same right to pull together some 'basic' conditions and purposes of their association as someone had in say circa 1823. We know that nature of political communities have undergone great change through history, and the conception of rights can be said to have undergone a corresponding change. It can be no one's case that we have reached the end of history, so I find this thing about lets stick to existing rights a bit difficult to swallow. It is more difficult to accept this for someone from a society that is in the middle of more rapid political evolution than someone in a relatively mature political system. And since, as discussed, changes in conception of rights has directly to do with evolution of a political community, I have great problem with how most analyses of rights as have been seen on this list mostly simply refuse to factor this angle in. (this evolution of political communities also cannot be taken to be going in a given specified direction, a la modernization theory.) Another issue of relevance here is this distinction of some rights needing spending of resources, as if others don't. Go to the stateless parts of Afghanistan, or Sudan, or insurgency bound areas of Kashmir, and you will begin to understand what kind of resource expenditure and systems need to be put in place to ensure the right against bodily harm, what to speak of FoE. Ensuring any right needs work to be done, otherwise they will be self-ensured. And doing any work/ effort means expenditure of resources. So this distinction too, at the bottom, is very fallacious. This is not to say that all political claims are rights, or even that all rights are equally important. Depending on our individual and collective political preferences, some may be more important than the other. And some are most important for all of us. For instance, we will all agree that the right against bodily harm is something extremely basic and important. But there are many grey shades here as political communities evolve. Does the right of children not to work in relatively dangerous conditions derive from this right? (Or, the right not to work at all.) Which all other 'child rights' derive for this right and from others. What are dangerous conditions? At some point just working long hours can be considered dangerous. Can then working long hours for adults also be considered dangerous?. Does then, the right to have a decent livelihood without working in 'dangerous conditions' become a right derived from the right against bodily harm. Does it mean anything, or help, to christen a new set of rights as child rights or labour rights, or is it blasphemous to the basic ideals of human rights. Who decides when this point of blasphemy is reached? It is amusing that people could argue that we should close the list of rights - as the list of states who can legally pursue nuclear weapon programs is official closed - when we, for instance, in India, see daily struggles of people to claim basic political rights, through grassroots movements, constructing these rights collectively, through new political consciousness. There is this right to livelihood struggle by tribals whose forest inhabitation is taken away by 'civilized' people carried self-certified documents based on right to property, and its 'legal' adjudication (reminds of something long back in the US ??). People dying with AIDS in millions when there are medicines that are not allowed to be produced by them (local companies) for self-consumption in the name of intellectual property rights. And therefore there is a (counter) political assertion of a right to health. This are only a few vignettes of the political struggles of a big number of people which are very conveniently sought to be excluded by some, from conceptions of what is political most important and non-negotiable - 'our' rights (whose??). This doesn't mean that we can talk about rights loosely. No not at all. These are, by definition, issues of highest importance to human life. But neither one should seek to freeze an arbitrary codification for everyone about what is of highest importance to human life for different political communities (including for the global community, whose 'political community' nature is increasingly stronger, and therefore we should be more careful than ever of political dominations, even if in the name of human rights.) In fact, at a seminar organized by IT for Change a few years back a social activist strongly challenged the conception of 'communication rights' as being un-connected to any people's movement or people's perspectives. She was strongly of the opinion that one has to be careful putting things in a 'rights framework', and not doing so devalues people's struggles (not only Indian people's struggles but as much as those of French, and American whose struggles underlie some very important rights). I have not brought this subject up with her but I expect her to criticize a conception of a possible 'right to the Internet' from the same perspective. I don't think she will be right in doing so, but I do agree with her framework of critique. But I don't agree with the frameworks of defending 'existing rights' and negating any other conceptions that seek refuge in UDHR as 'the' rights document or in negative-positive right distinctions. Instead, let us be tuned in to people's political realities and struggles which give shape to rights. There is no other yardstick of 'deciding on' what can be or cant be rights. Such essentialism is self serving for the respective political ideologies professed by the protagonists. (No, it is not neo-imperialism - at least, not yet :-) ) Since we are discussing rights as a part of an advocacy group (which concerns social change), I think we should, in my view, be more tuned with real frontiers of social change, and deep political realities of these frontiers. And since this is a global group, I think its political legitimacy lies in being globally inclusive in conceiving of what is highest in terms of our political priorities as a global political community. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 19 07:08:05 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:38:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results Message-ID: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn on IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. I also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to volunteer for co-coordinatorship. Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the co-coordinator of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. Congrats Ian, and welcome. As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing this group's various activities. Parminder PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on the election process with full results in a day or two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 08:06:55 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:06:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Congrats Ian. We look forward to benefitting from your insights. Vittorio's skills and leadership has benefitted one and many on this forum and I will like to say solong to Vitorrio. I look forward to that other opportunity when I will gain from your leadership. Aaron On 8/19/08, Parminder wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn on > IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. I > also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to > volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the co-coordinator > of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I > thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this > capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing > this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on the > election process with full results in a day or two. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 09:43:20 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:20 +0500 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <701af9f70808190643p7b1e4a54v383203f1dcd36d36@mail.gmail.com> Welcome IAN and congrats for taking up the co-coordinator of the IG Caucus! Also, thank you to Parminder and Derrick Cogburn for successfully managing the election process. We look forward to benefiting from your coordination of the IG Caucus process and direction. Once again, congratulations. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa IG Researcher and Advisor On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn on > IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. I > also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to > volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the co-coordinator > of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I > thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this > capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing > this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on the > election process with full results in a day or two. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 19 12:23:24 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:23:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Ian , Congrats and good luck Félicitations et bonne chance Baudouin 2008/8/19 Parminder > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn > on IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. > I also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to > volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the > co-coordinator of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I > thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this > capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing > this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on > the election process with full results in a day or two. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 ahmed.swapan at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:50:42 2008 From: ahmed.swapan at gmail.com (Ahmed Swapan Mahmud) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:50:42 +0600 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: That's great that the resul has come out smoothly. Congrats Ian and hope you will uphold the activities. Welcome! Ahmed On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn > on IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. > I also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to > volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the > co-coordinator of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I > thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this > capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing > this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on > the election process with full results in a day or two. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Executive Director, VOICE House 67, Block-Ka Pisciculture Housing Society Shyamoli, Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh Tel : +88-02-8158688 Cell-phone : +88-01711-881919 Alternate e-mail : exchange.voice at gmail.com Website : www.voicebd.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Aug 19 14:07:53 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:07:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> Congrats to Ian, as well as to the people who organized this election process. Is it policy not to circulate the actual results (unless I missed some msg)? It would be interesting to know how many actually voted, how many from each region, how many votes for each candidate etc. In short, basic statistics usually expected in elections. frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn on > IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. I > also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to > volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the co-coordinator > of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I > thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this > capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing > this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on the > election process with full results in a day or two. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 16:17:03 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:17:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <20080819060127.D810769F2C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48A9D8BE.FDCBDB1B@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Interesting thoughts, and nicely expressed. However to a great degree some of what you seem to be suggesting or espousing, doesn't "Ring" true in my experiance. Therefore I cannot fully agree. Self determination of what is and what is not a right of self defense and self help and safty remains a basic and fundemental right and one that is and has been recognized by most, but not all freedom loving countries governments and political structures, the UN, and most, but not all international NGO's. Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Rights to me are a set of basic conditions and purposes of political > association of human groups. They are basic, and therefore they cannot > be each and every thing which is decided by the concerned political > community. However at the same time the nature of political > association, and of a political community, is not static. Its members > today have the same right to pull together some ‘basic’ conditions and > purposes of their association as someone had in say circa 1823. > > We know that nature of political communities have undergone great > change through history, and the conception of rights can be said to > have undergone a corresponding change. It can be no one’s case that we > have reached the end of history, so I find this thing about lets stick > to existing rights a bit difficult to swallow. It is more difficult to > accept this for someone from a society that is in the middle of more > rapid political evolution than someone in a relatively mature > political system. And since, as discussed, changes in conception of > rights has directly to do with evolution of a political community, I > have great problem with how most analyses of rights as have been seen > on this list mostly simply refuse to factor this angle in. (this > evolution of political communities also cannot be taken to be going in > a given specified direction, a la modernization theory.) > > Another issue of relevance here is this distinction of some rights > needing spending of resources, as if others don’t. Go to the stateless > parts of Afghanistan, or Sudan, or insurgency bound areas of Kashmir, > and you will begin to understand what kind of resource expenditure and > systems need to be put in place to ensure the right against bodily > harm, what to speak of FoE. Ensuring any right needs work to be done, > otherwise they will be self-ensured. And doing any work/ effort means > expenditure of resources. So this distinction too, at the bottom, is > very fallacious. > > This is not to say that all political claims are rights, or even that > all rights are equally important. Depending on our individual and > collective political preferences, some may be more important than the > other. And some are most important for all of us. For instance, we > will all agree that the right against bodily harm is something > extremely basic and important. But there are many grey shades here as > political communities evolve. Does the right of children not to work > in relatively dangerous conditions derive from this right? (Or, the > right not to work at all.) Which all other ‘child rights’ derive for > this right and from others. What are dangerous conditions? At some > point just working long hours can be considered dangerous. Can then > working long hours for adults also be considered dangerous?. Does > then, the right to have a decent livelihood without working in > ‘dangerous conditions’ become a right derived from the right against > bodily harm. Does it mean anything, or help, to christen a new set of > rights as child rights or labour rights, or is it blasphemous to the > basic ideals of human rights. Who decides when this point of blasphemy > is reached? > > It is amusing that people could argue that we should close the list of > rights - as the list of states who can legally pursue nuclear weapon > programs is official closed – when we, for instance, in India, see > daily struggles of people to claim basic political rights, through > grassroots movements, constructing these rights collectively, through > new political consciousness. There is this right to livelihood > struggle by tribals whose forest inhabitation is taken away by > ‘civilized’ people carried self-certified documents based on right to > property, and its ‘legal’ adjudication (reminds of something long back > in the US ??). People dying with AIDS in millions when there are > medicines that are not allowed to be produced by them (local > companies) for self-consumption in the name of intellectual property > rights. And therefore there is a (counter) political assertion of a > right to health. This are only a few vignettes of the political > struggles of a big number of people which are very conveniently sought > to be excluded by some, from conceptions of what is political most > important and non-negotiable – ‘our’ rights (whose??). > > This doesn’t mean that we can talk about rights loosely. No not at > all. These are, by definition, issues of highest importance to human > life. But neither one should seek to freeze an arbitrary codification > for everyone about what is of highest importance to human life for > different political communities (including for the global community, > whose ‘political community’ nature is increasingly stronger, and > therefore we should be more careful than ever of political > dominations, even if in the name of human rights.) > > In fact, at a seminar organized by IT for Change a few years back a > social activist strongly challenged the conception of ‘communication > rights’ as being un-connected to any people’s movement or people’s > perspectives. She was strongly of the opinion that one has to be > careful putting things in a ’rights framework’, and not doing so > devalues people’s struggles (not only Indian people’s struggles but > as much as those of French, and American whose struggles underlie some > very important rights). I have not brought this subject up with her > but I expect her to criticize a conception of a possible ‘right to the > Internet’ from the same perspective. I don’t think she will be right > in doing so, but I do agree with her framework of critique. > > But I don’t agree with the frameworks of defending ‘existing rights’ > and negating any other conceptions that seek refuge in UDHR as ‘the’ > rights document or in negative-positive right distinctions. Instead, > let us be tuned in to people’s political realities and struggles which > give shape to rights. There is no other yardstick of ‘deciding on’ > what can be or cant be rights. Such essentialism is self serving for > the respective political ideologies professed by the protagonists. > (No, it is not neo-imperialism - at least, not yet :-) ) > > Since we are discussing rights as a part of an advocacy group (which > concerns social change), I think we should, in my view, be more tuned > with real frontiers of social change, and deep political realities of > these frontiers. And since this is a global group, I think its > political legitimacy lies in being globally inclusive in conceiving of > what is highest in terms of our political priorities as a global > political community. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 16:41:41 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:41:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [ga] FW: ccNSO Phishing survey results References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D788D60D37C7@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <48A9DE80.52C56F82@ix.netcom.com> Glen and all, Thank you for forwarding this along, much appreciated. Unfortunately it seems that this report has done little to reduce the phishing activity. Reporting is fine, but actually doing something about Phishers is what ICANN should focus it's attention on. That unfortunately, ICANN's SSAC has done little, if anything. We find this to be less than exceptable and a ongoing demonstration of poor leadership. As such, our members will continue to take more aggressive steps to thwart phishing anywhere, anytime, and every time we recognize it occurring. We will of course work with relevant LEA's as is appropriate and have shown to be effective and consistent. Let me again express our members noticed and reported Registries and Registrars whom have Domain Names that frequently engage in phishing. The most significant offenders are as follows: Enom Godaddy Network Solutions Afilias We believe that if effective corrective action regarding these contracted agents of ICANN whos abusive registrants and lack of proper enforcement on same is not taken forthwith, that ICANN has abrogated it's public responsibility and obligation under the MOU, accordingly. Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > > Dear All, > > Please note that the ccNSO phishing survey report is posted at: > http://www.ccnso.icann.org/surveys/phishing-issues-survey-results-jun08.pdf > > The survey was conducted in spring -08, the results presented at the Paris meeting and the report published early August. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > > Dear All, > > Please note that the ccNSO phishing survey report is posted at: > http://www.ccnso.icann.org/surveys/phishing-issues-survey-results-jun08.pdf > > The survey was conducted in spring -08, the results presented at the Paris meeting and the report published early August. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 19 16:28:50 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI Lessig on McCain References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.circleid.com/posts/88192_lawrence_lessigs_reaction_mccain_technology_plan/ 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Aug 19 17:06:28 2008 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:06:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI Lessig on McCain In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48AB35D4.3030404@jacquelinemorris.com> Hi Wolfgang He talks about Broadband penetration decline, in that the US is going from #5 to #22 worldwide. I am confused. How is broadband penetration declining in the US? Is there really a decline in the penetration figures? Are people in the US turning off their broadband and the penetration numbers are going down - from 60% penetration to 50% penetration, or from 200million to 150 million? Or has the market totally stagnated and the population is growing, thus reducing the penetration numbers? Or is he talking about something else entirely - the fact that broadband penetration in other countries has gone to higher levels than the US. Isn't that a result of other countries' growth and the likelihood that in the US, the easy broadband penetration is done, (the low hanging fruit) and now there's diminishing returns (more expensive to provide broadband per person in hard to reach, rural areas and so on)? According to this, when everyone gets to 100% penetration, the US will be at the bottom of the pile! (or the top, depending on how you see it) Jacqueline Kleinwächter wrote: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/88192_lawrence_lessigs_reaction_mccain_technology_plan/ > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Aug 19 17:31:43 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:31:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <48AB3BBF.8080504@rits.org.br> Oops,. sorry, Jacques just alerted me that I missed the footnote in Parm's msg. Fine, let us wait for the details. frt rgds --c.a. Carlos Afonso wrote: > Congrats to Ian, as well as to the people who organized this election > process. > > Is it policy not to circulate the actual results (unless I missed some > msg)? It would be interesting to know how many actually voted, how many > from each region, how many votes for each candidate etc. In short, basic > statistics usually expected in elections. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> >> >> I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick Cogburn on >> IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, so smoothly. I >> also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded to the call to >> volunteer for co-coordinatorship. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the co-coordinator >> of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. >> >> >> >> Congrats Ian, and welcome. >> >> >> >> As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a co-coordinator. I >> thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for outstanding work done in this >> capacity. We all highly appreciate his skills and leadership in managing >> this group's various activities. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report on the >> election process with full results in a day or two. >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 19 17:58:58 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:58:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] FYI Lessig on McCain In-Reply-To: <48AB35D4.3030404@jacquelinemorris.com> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <48AB35D4.3030404@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: <07B8593D-CF45-4741-A796-EFE9B21331DE@internet.law.pro> > US is going from #5 to #22 worldwide. I am confused. It's as a percentage of the population. Numbers in the U.S. continue to increase, but numbers in other countries are increasing at a faster rate, so other nations have passed us. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 20:53:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:53:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] FYI Lessig on McCain References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48AA197F.C9366A57@ix.netcom.com> Wolfgang and all, Yes this take by Larry is a good one from one point of view, of course. I do agree in part with Larry, whom I have often times exchanged views with. But I think he is too focused on only one aspect of McCains policy platform which I posted several days ago here. Therefore his focus is too narrow, IMO. Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/88192_lawrence_lessigs_reaction_mccain_technology_plan/ > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 18 20:56:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:56:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] FYI Lessig on McCain References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426152@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <48AB35D4.3030404@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: <48AA1A2C.DC7D58E4@ix.netcom.com> Jacque and all, Good questions and just a good of points. It is clear that the broad band market in the US is nearly saturated, and outside the US the market is not yet fully realized. Ergo your latter conclusion seems more accurate of an evaluation. "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote: > Hi Wolfgang > He talks about Broadband penetration decline, in that the US is going > from #5 to #22 worldwide. I am confused. > How is broadband penetration declining in the US? > Is there really a decline in the penetration figures? Are people in the > US turning off their broadband and the penetration numbers are going > down - from 60% penetration to 50% penetration, or from 200million to > 150 million? > Or has the market totally stagnated and the population is growing, thus > reducing the penetration numbers? > Or is he talking about something else entirely - the fact that broadband > penetration in other countries has gone to higher levels than the US. > Isn't that a result of other countries' growth and the likelihood that > in the US, the easy broadband penetration is done, (the low hanging > fruit) and now there's diminishing returns (more expensive to provide > broadband per person in hard to reach, rural areas and so on)? > According to this, when everyone gets to 100% penetration, the US will > be at the bottom of the pile! (or the top, depending on how you see it) > > Jacqueline > > Kleinwächter wrote: > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/88192_lawrence_lessigs_reaction_mccain_technology_plan/ > > > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 20 03:32:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:02:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080820073223.DBDF36A094@smtp1.electricembers.net> On the issue of the period of co-coordinatorship, Ian's and mine: The last elections were held in November 2006 immediately after IGF's first meeting in Athens. As per the charter the annual elections are to be held in June of each month, or as close as possible to it. Each co-coordinator is elected for 2 years. However, it was found desirable that both co-coordinators do not change at the same time and that one of them is replaced each year. To put this processes into motion the first set of two co-coordinators were elected for different terms - one for a year, and the other for two years. Vittorio was elected for a year and I for two years. 2007 elections were due in June, 2007, but that would have given Vittorio only a few months. I proposed that Vittorio continues till IGF, Rio, in November, 2007. I also proposed that the IGC co-coordinator election cycle coincide with the annual IGFs as the IGF is a primary institution of engagement by the IGC. Accordingly, the elections should have been held soon after Rio. These got postponed for a variety of reasons which I would not go into now. Ian's term, if the present one to be considered the 2007 elections, would be till June 2009. But I suggest that it be till December, 2009, i.e. the close of IGF-4 in Cairo. And along with the 2009 election we get into a cycle of co-coordinator elections immediately after the annual IGF meet. As for my term, it ends immediately as Ian decides to hold elections and the new co-coordinator takes up. These elections are due and can be conducted at the earliest possible time. I personally am now keen to step down. On another, but connected note, I suggest that we explore the possibility of developing a funding proposal for an intern or someone to support the IGC co-coordinators, plus a couple of travel grants for the co-coordinators to attend important meetings. This will immensely enhance the capacity of the co-coordinators, and the effectiveness of the caucus. This may not easy but is worth giving a try with some likely funders. The IGF has recognized the IGC's strong position in the IG civil society area with a green light to three workshops sponsored by us plus one that we co-sponsored. This is a monumental step forward. However, to meet the consequent expectations and responsibilities well we need to pull ourselves together as a more coherent working unit. Ian is an energetic person driven by keen purposefulness. I am sure he will provide us strong leadership in this regard. But we need to start hearing from the members more, and more often, on these organizational issues. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Aug 20 04:04:23 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:04:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results References: <20080820073223.DBDF36A094@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <006a01c9029b$5d2bfc80$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Parminder Once gain, many thanks for your very clear informations which provide us the best insight of what is going on and, moreover, what is important in all this info-flow. My best thanks also for your job and your commitment, for the sake of the CS involved in the different domains of the WSIS follow-up process. My congratulations to Ian and my best wishes for a successfull job during his mandate. I do hope he'll do his best to keep the CS informed in due course about the main events and of progress in the Internet governance field, in respect to the principles of both the CS declarations of Geneva and Tunis. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results On the issue of the period of co-coordinatorship, Ian's and mine: The last elections were held in November 2006 immediately after IGF's first meeting in Athens. As per the charter the annual elections are to be held in June of each month, or as close as possible to it. Each co-coordinator is elected for 2 years. However, it was found desirable that both co-coordinators do not change at the same time and that one of them is replaced each year. To put this processes into motion the first set of two co-coordinators were elected for different terms - one for a year, and the other for two years. Vittorio was elected for a year and I for two years. 2007 elections were due in June, 2007, but that would have given Vittorio only a few months. I proposed that Vittorio continues till IGF, Rio, in November, 2007. I also proposed that the IGC co-coordinator election cycle coincide with the annual IGFs as the IGF is a primary institution of engagement by the IGC. Accordingly, the elections should have been held soon after Rio. These got postponed for a variety of reasons which I would not go into now. Ian's term, if the present one to be considered the 2007 elections, would be till June 2009. But I suggest that it be till December, 2009, i.e. the close of IGF-4 in Cairo. And along with the 2009 election we get into a cycle of co-coordinator elections immediately after the annual IGF meet. As for my term, it ends immediately as Ian decides to hold elections and the new co-coordinator takes up. These elections are due and can be conducted at the earliest possible time. I personally am now keen to step down. On another, but connected note, I suggest that we explore the possibility of developing a funding proposal for an intern or someone to support the IGC co-coordinators, plus a couple of travel grants for the co-coordinators to attend important meetings. This will immensely enhance the capacity of the co-coordinators, and the effectiveness of the caucus. This may not easy but is worth giving a try with some likely funders. The IGF has recognized the IGC's strong position in the IG civil society area with a green light to three workshops sponsored by us plus one that we co-sponsored. This is a monumental step forward. However, to meet the consequent expectations and responsibilities well we need to pull ourselves together as a more coherent working unit. Ian is an energetic person driven by keen purposefulness. I am sure he will provide us strong leadership in this regard. But we need to start hearing from the members more, and more often, on these organizational issues. 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: -------------- 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 Aug 20 05:26:19 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:26:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair In-Reply-To: <20080820073223.DBDF36A094@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I take this on - I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow the Charter. I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this role. Ian Peter Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 20 06:58:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:28:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080820105850.6C339E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All I am sharing as enclosed, the election report sent by Dr Derrick Cogburn of the Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) at Syracuse University. It indicates 100 voters with the results as Ian Peter (76%, n=76) David Goldstein (14%, n=14) None of the Above (10%, n=10) One person informed me after the voting that she did not receive the ballot, but as per our records we had sent it. However, I am added her to the voters list with her vote as 'none of the above', since in any case her vote would not change the result. Though the voter I am adding now is already on the members list, adding her name to the list of voters in this election ensures she has a right to vote in case of a charter amendment process. So the final tally as recorded is Ian Peter (n=76) David Goldstein (n=14) None of the Above (n=11) Total votes - 101 Out of those who voted in this elections, after asserting membership, 13 are new members of the IGC and after adding them to the present 127, the total number of IGC members will go up to 140. Among them, the 101 who voted in the election will have the special added right to cast votes in case of any charter amendment process. This number is considerably larger than the number that voted in last election, which was 47. Therefore we have a good electorate of 101 for any charter amendment process that may be required, and a good membership of 140 for all other caucus processes that are membership-based. The total IGC listserv subscription appears to be 342 (though there seems to be a very high bounce rate and this figure may need to be corrected). It will take me a few days to bring out the list of those who voted in this election because I have to match email ids with names. As suggested by Carlos, I will also attempt an analysis by gender, geography etc. Thanks everybody. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC-Election-Report.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 2116 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 08:40:50 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:40:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair Message-ID: <20080820124101.8BFAC7000099@mwinf2b17.orange.fr> Hallo Ian Peter, Although I am yet very seldom on this list, I follow the important threads, and I want to add my congratulations and best wishes. You certainly will form a great team with Parminder, who, I agree, should stay on until after Hyderabad. I look forward to your marks and next suggestions. Best Renate ----------------------------- Renate Bloem Past CONGO President Civicus UN Geneva Tel: +33450 850815 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org BBC World Have Your Say - live from the CIVICUS World Assembly log on now at: http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/whys-in-glasgow-in-june/ register now at www.civicusassembly. P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: mercredi, 20. août 2008 11:26 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of sympathy!) here and in my email. It’s not without some trepidation that I take this on – I’ve observed here long enough to know just how tough a job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. Firstly, I note Parminder’s reference to being ready to stand down now. I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of his experience during this year’s IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to complete this by November. It’s at least a two month process if we follow the Charter. I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I’ve discussed this with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David’s name to the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. I’ll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the near future. I certainly support Parminder’s suggestion as regards seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this role. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Wed Aug 20 08:56:04 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:56:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as References: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842615A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Congratulations Ian and take my best wishes. There are numerous challenges ahead: ICANN, IGF, ITU, NGN. A strong CS voice is more than needed. Lets work together. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Gesendet: Mi 20.08.2008 11:26 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Betreff: RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I take this on - I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow the Charter. I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this role. Ian Peter Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Aug 20 09:23:11 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:23:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair References: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4F91@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> A quick note of congrats/sympathy to Ian, thanks to Parminder for considering staying in the hot seat through Hyderabad, and thanks also to David for running, and stepping up for the noncom non-voting chair role. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Wed 8/20/2008 5:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I take this on - I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow the Charter. I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this role. Ian Peter Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Wed Aug 20 09:30:02 2008 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:30:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair In-Reply-To: <20080820124101.8BFAC7000099@mwinf2b17.orange.fr> References: <20080820124101.8BFAC7000099@mwinf2b17.orange.fr> Message-ID: Hi Ian, Indeed, it is my great pleasure to work with you as one of co-coordinators of CS Internet Governance Caucus. After Renate, I would like to echo your suggestion that CS Internet Governance caucus at this critical juncture needs both Parminder's experienceed leadership as well as your dynamic leadership. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I thank Parminder for his devoted leadership for this group and extend my best wishes for Ian as new co-coordinators of this group. YJ On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hallo Ian Peter, > > > > Although I am yet very seldom on this list, I follow the important threads, > and I want to add my congratulations and best wishes. You certainly will > form a great team with Parminder, who, I agree, should stay on until after > Hyderabad. I look forward to your marks and next suggestions. > > > > Best > > Renate > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > Renate Bloem > > Past CONGO President > > *Civicus UN Geneva* > > Tel: +33450 850815 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > > *CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation* > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > > * * > > *BBC World Have Your Say - **live** from the CIVICUS World Assembly * > > *log on **now** at: > http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/whys-in-glasgow-in-june/* > > *register **now** at www.civicusassembly. > * > > * * > > *P** **Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank > you.* > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* mercredi, 20. août 2008 11:26 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and > suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair > > > > Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of > sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I > take this on – I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a job > it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and > organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work > with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. > > > > I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. > I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to > work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process > issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this > caucus in advancing internet governance issues. > > > > Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. > > > > Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I > have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on > until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of > his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is > willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. > That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF > meeting rather than rushing in two this year. > > > > In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This > is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, > and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to > complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow > the Charter. > > > > I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed > as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who > as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written > me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved > in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent > person to take on this responsibility. > > > > The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the > co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with > Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the Caucus > for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant > advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. > Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. > > > > I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the > near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards seeking a > funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process > issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange > strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to > personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would > welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist > in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this > role. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 20 09:43:54 2008 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:43:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair In-Reply-To: References: <20080820124101.8BFAC7000099@mwinf2b17.orange.fr> Message-ID: Hi Lee, Let me join you thanking David for his willingness to serve as noncom non-voting chair. too! YJ On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM, YJ Park wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Indeed, it is my great pleasure to work with you as one of co-coordinators > of CS Internet Governance Caucus. > > After Renate, I would like to echo your suggestion that CS Internet > Governance caucus at this critical juncture needs both Parminder's > experienceed leadership as well as your dynamic leadership. > > Taking advantage of this opportunity, I thank Parminder for his devoted > leadership for this group and extend my best wishes for Ian as new > co-coordinators of this group. > YJ > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < > renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hallo Ian Peter, >> >> >> >> Although I am yet very seldom on this list, I follow the important >> threads, and I want to add my congratulations and best wishes. You certainly >> will form a great team with Parminder, who, I agree, should stay on until >> after Hyderabad. I look forward to your marks and next suggestions. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Renate >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> Renate Bloem >> >> Past CONGO President >> >> *Civicus UN Geneva* >> >> Tel: +33450 850815 >> >> Mobile : +41763462310 >> >> renate.bloem at civicus.org >> >> >> *CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation* >> >> PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa >> www.civicus.org >> >> * * >> >> *BBC World Have Your Say - **live** from the CIVICUS World Assembly * >> >> *log on **now** at: >> http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/whys-in-glasgow-in-june/ >> * >> >> *register **now** at www.civicusassembly. >> * >> >> * * >> >> *P** **Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank >> you.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> *Sent:* mercredi, 20. août 2008 11:26 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and >> suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of >> sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I >> take this on – I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a job >> it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and >> organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to work >> with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. >> >> >> >> I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will work. >> I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to >> work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process >> issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of this >> caucus in advancing internet governance issues. >> >> >> >> Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. >> >> >> >> Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I >> have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying on >> until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit of >> his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is >> willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. >> That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF >> meeting rather than rushing in two this year. >> >> >> >> In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This >> is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for candidates, >> and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able to >> complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow >> the Charter. >> >> >> >> I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed >> as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, who >> as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has written >> me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone involved >> in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent >> person to take on this responsibility. >> >> >> >> The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the >> co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with >> Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the Caucus >> for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any relevant >> advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process underway. >> Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. >> >> >> >> I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the >> near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards seeking a >> funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process >> issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange >> strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to >> personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would >> welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist >> in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in this >> role. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 20 10:07:22 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:07:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair In-Reply-To: References: <20080820124101.8BFAC7000099@mwinf2b17.orange.fr> Message-ID: Many thanks to David for opting to take the Chair and Kudos to Parminder for considering to stay beyond Hyderabad. These are sur signs that Ian is in for a smooth mandate... Aaron On 8/20/08, YJ Park wrote: > Hi Lee, > > Let me join you thanking David for his willingness to serve as noncom > non-voting chair. too! > YJ > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM, YJ Park wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> Indeed, it is my great pleasure to work with you as one of co-coordinators >> of CS Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> After Renate, I would like to echo your suggestion that CS Internet >> Governance caucus at this critical juncture needs both Parminder's >> experienceed leadership as well as your dynamic leadership. >> >> Taking advantage of this opportunity, I thank Parminder for his devoted >> leadership for this group and extend my best wishes for Ian as new >> co-coordinators of this group. >> YJ >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < >> renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hallo Ian Peter, >>> >>> >>> >>> Although I am yet very seldom on this list, I follow the important >>> threads, and I want to add my congratulations and best wishes. You >>> certainly >>> will form a great team with Parminder, who, I agree, should stay on until >>> after Hyderabad. I look forward to your marks and next suggestions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Renate >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Renate Bloem >>> >>> Past CONGO President >>> >>> *Civicus UN Geneva* >>> >>> Tel: +33450 850815 >>> >>> Mobile : +41763462310 >>> >>> renate.bloem at civicus.org >>> >>> >>> *CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation* >>> >>> PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa >>> www.civicus.org >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *BBC World Have Your Say - **live** from the CIVICUS World Assembly * >>> >>> *log on **now** at: >>> http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/whys-in-glasgow-in-june/ >>> * >>> >>> *register **now** at >>> www.civicusassembly. >>> * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *P** **Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank >>> you.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> *Sent:* mercredi, 20. août 2008 11:26 >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] co-coordinator election results and >>> suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of >>> sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that I >>> take this on – I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a >>> job >>> it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and >>> organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to >>> work >>> with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will >>> work. >>> I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just like to >>> work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out process >>> issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and credibility of >>> this >>> caucus in advancing internet governance issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> >>> >>> Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. I >>> have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider staying >>> on >>> until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have the benefit >>> of >>> his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, if Parminder is >>> willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement in January 2009. >>> That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar year after the IGF >>> meeting rather than rushing in two this year. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. This >>> is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for >>> candidates, >>> and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we should be able >>> to >>> complete this by November. It's at least a two month process if we follow >>> the Charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be appointed >>> as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team NomCom.. David, >>> who >>> as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator elections, has >>> written >>> me a very kind personal note and offered to assist, and as someone >>> involved >>> in the Caucus and with previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent >>> person to take on this responsibility. >>> >>> >>> >>> The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by the >>> co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this with >>> Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to the >>> Caucus >>> for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and forward any >>> relevant >>> advice within the next few days so we can get this overdue process >>> underway. >>> Next week we should begin the process of forming a NomCom for this >>> purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in the >>> near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards >>> seeking a >>> funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards process >>> issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to exchange >>> strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without resorting to >>> personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, and I would >>> welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best >>> assist >>> in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in >>> this >>> role. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 55 31 Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Aug 20 10:27:41 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:27:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions In-Reply-To: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> References: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> Message-ID: <48AC29DD.6030800@wzb.eu> Many thanks and best wished to Ian also from me. Regarding the non-voting chair for the appeals time, I would like to remind you that volunteers for chairing the caucus so far have not been abound. If David will be appointed as non-voting chair of the appeals team, would that prevent him from running for the co-chair position in the January election? Should that be the case, I personally would hope that he rather runs again for the position of the co-chair. I would think it is less difficult to fill the position of the appeals team chair than finding a good co-chair for the caucus. jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of > sympathy!) here and in my email. It’s not without some trepidation that > I take this on – I’ve observed here long enough to know just how tough a > job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and > organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to > work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. > > > > I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will > work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just > like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out > process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and > credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. > > > > Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. > > > > Firstly, I note Parminder’s reference to being ready to stand down now. > I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider > staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have > the benefit of his experience during this year’s IGF. So my intention, > if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement > in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar > year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. > > > > In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. > This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for > candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we > should be able to complete this by November. It’s at least a two month > process if we follow the Charter. > > > > I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be > appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team > NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator > elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to > assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs > will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. > > > > The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by > the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I’ve discussed this > with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David’s name to > the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and > forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this > overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of > forming a NomCom for this purpose. > > > > I’ll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in > the near future. I certainly support Parminder’s suggestion as regards > seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards > process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to > exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without > resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, > and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I > can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working > with you all in this role. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 20 10:33:55 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:33:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions as regards independent nomcom chair In-Reply-To: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> References: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> Message-ID: Ian, i support your recommendations. And add my public congratulations and gratitude to you for taking on the job. a. On 20 Aug 2008, at 05:26, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions > of sympathy!) here and in my email. It’s not without some > trepidation that I take this on – I’ve observed here long enough to > know just how tough a job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many > diverse individuals and organizations involved. I can promise that I > will try to assist and to work with you all on improving our > capacity to have our voices heard. > > I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will > work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would > just like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping > sort out process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence > and credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance > issues. > > Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. > > Firstly, I note Parminder’s reference to being ready to stand down > now. I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would > consider staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co- > ordinator have the benefit of his experience during this year’s IGF. > So my intention, if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections > for his replacement in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an > election each calendar year after the IGF meeting rather than > rushing in two this year. > > In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. > This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for > candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we > should be able to complete this by November. It’s at least a two > month process if we follow the Charter. > > I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be > appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team > NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co- > ordinator elections, has written me a very kind personal note and > offered to assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with > previous NomComs will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on > this responsibility. > > The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed > by the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I’ve discussed > this with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David’s > name to the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this > suggestion and forward any relevant advice within the next few days > so we can get this overdue process underway. Next week we should > begin the process of forming a NomCom for this purpose. > > I’ll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues > in the near future. I certainly support Parminder’s suggestion as > regards seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few > things as regards process issues, improving the website, and > improving our capacity to exchange strongly held and differing > viewpoints on issues without resorting to personal attacks. These > are some of the priorities I see, and I would welcome email from > anyone with any suggestions as to how I can best assist in > furthering our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in > this role. > > > > > Ian Peter > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > 8/9/2008 1:22 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 20 10:42:52 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:42:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions In-Reply-To: <48AC29DD.6030800@wzb.eu> References: <124AB266A1514A3A9DCDC3D42EE4F67B@IAN> <48AC29DD.6030800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 20 Aug 2008, at 10:27, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > If David will be appointed as non-voting chair of the appeals team, > would that prevent him from running for the co-chair position in the > January election? i do not believe so. from: http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html > 4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be > disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being > chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be > disqualified from being chosen. i not do think chairing the nomcom has that effect of barring him from being on anything other then the appeals team. interesting side effect i don't think i noticed before, but which i think is good, appeals team members who are barred from being chosen for anything while being members of the appeals team are also barred from being chosen for a repeat term. 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:23:38 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:23:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <20080819060127.D810769F2C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080820182345.D47DB1C0008D@mwinf2723.orange.fr> Hi Parminder and all, Thanks for how you expressed so evidently how rights are evolving or become more conscious. FYI, yesterday I attended during the session of the UNWG on the Right to Development the launching of the Implementing the Right to Development – The Role of International Law, a joint publication by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and the Harvard School of Public Health, Program on Human Rights in Development, soon to be online. In the meantime you can find Towards the implementation of the right to development : field-testing and fine-tuning the UN criteria on the right to development in the Kenyan-German parthership / Felix Kirchmeier ; Monika Lüke ; Britt Kalla. - Geneva : Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Geneva Office, [2007]. - 46 S. = 2,3 MB, PDF-File. - Electronic ed.: Genf ; Bonn : FES, 2008 ISBN 978-3-89892-853-3 Die Publikation im PDF-Format http://library.fes.de/cgi-bin/populo/digbib.pl?f_ABC=genf &t_listen=x&sortierung=jab Best Renate _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: mardi, 19. août 2008 08:01 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research Hi All Rights to me are a set of basic conditions and purposes of political association of human groups. They are basic, and therefore they cannot be each and every thing which is decided by the concerned political community. However at the same time the nature of political association, and of a political community, is not static. Its members today have the same right to pull together some ‘basic’ conditions and purposes of their association as someone had in say circa 1823. We know that nature of political communities have undergone great change through history, and the conception of rights can be said to have undergone a corresponding change. It can be no one’s case that we have reached the end of history, so I find this thing about lets stick to existing rights a bit difficult to swallow. It is more difficult to accept this for someone from a society that is in the middle of more rapid political evolution than someone in a relatively mature political system. And since, as discussed, changes in conception of rights has directly to do with evolution of a political community, I have great problem with how most analyses of rights as have been seen on this list mostly simply refuse to factor this angle in. (this evolution of political communities also cannot be taken to be going in a given specified direction, a la modernization theory.) Another issue of relevance here is this distinction of some rights needing spending of resources, as if others don’t. Go to the stateless parts of Afghanistan, or Sudan, or insurgency bound areas of Kashmir, and you will begin to understand what kind of resource expenditure and systems need to be put in place to ensure the right against bodily harm, what to speak of FoE. Ensuring any right needs work to be done, otherwise they will be self-ensured. And doing any work/ effort means expenditure of resources. So this distinction too, at the bottom, is very fallacious. This is not to say that all political claims are rights, or even that all rights are equally important. Depending on our individual and collective political preferences, some may be more important than the other. And some are most important for all of us. For instance, we will all agree that the right against bodily harm is something extremely basic and important. But there are many grey shades here as political communities evolve. Does the right of children not to work in relatively dangerous conditions derive from this right? (Or, the right not to work at all.) Which all other ‘child rights’ derive for this right and from others. What are dangerous conditions? At some point just working long hours can be considered dangerous. Can then working long hours for adults also be considered dangerous?. Does then, the right to have a decent livelihood without working in ‘dangerous conditions’ become a right derived from the right against bodily harm. Does it mean anything, or help, to christen a new set of rights as child rights or labour rights, or is it blasphemous to the basic ideals of human rights. Who decides when this point of blasphemy is reached? It is amusing that people could argue that we should close the list of rights - as the list of states who can legally pursue nuclear weapon programs is official closed – when we, for instance, in India, see daily struggles of people to claim basic political rights, through grassroots movements, constructing these rights collectively, through new political consciousness. There is this right to livelihood struggle by tribals whose forest inhabitation is taken away by ‘civilized’ people carried self-certified documents based on right to property, and its ‘legal’ adjudication (reminds of something long back in the US ??). People dying with AIDS in millions when there are medicines that are not allowed to be produced by them (local companies) for self-consumption in the name of intellectual property rights. And therefore there is a (counter) political assertion of a right to health. This are only a few vignettes of the political struggles of a big number of people which are very conveniently sought to be excluded by some, from conceptions of what is political most important and non-negotiable – ‘our’ rights (whose??). This doesn’t mean that we can talk about rights loosely. No not at all. These are, by definition, issues of highest importance to human life. But neither one should seek to freeze an arbitrary codification for everyone about what is of highest importance to human life for different political communities (including for the global community, whose ‘political community’ nature is increasingly stronger, and therefore we should be more careful than ever of political dominations, even if in the name of human rights.) In fact, at a seminar organized by IT for Change a few years back a social activist strongly challenged the conception of ‘communication rights’ as being un-connected to any people’s movement or people’s perspectives. She was strongly of the opinion that one has to be careful putting things in a ’rights framework’, and not doing so devalues people’s struggles (not only Indian people’s struggles but as much as those of French, and American whose struggles underlie some very important rights). I have not brought this subject up with her but I expect her to criticize a conception of a possible ‘right to the Internet’ from the same perspective. I don’t think she will be right in doing so, but I do agree with her framework of critique. But I don’t agree with the frameworks of defending ‘existing rights’ and negating any other conceptions that seek refuge in UDHR as ‘the’ rights document or in negative-positive right distinctions. Instead, let us be tuned in to people’s political realities and struggles which give shape to rights. There is no other yardstick of ‘deciding on’ what can be or cant be rights. Such essentialism is self serving for the respective political ideologies professed by the protagonists. (No, it is not neo-imperialism - at least, not yet :-) ) Since we are discussing rights as a part of an advocacy group (which concerns social change), I think we should, in my view, be more tuned with real frontiers of social change, and deep political realities of these frontiers. And since this is a global group, I think its political legitimacy lies in being globally inclusive in conceiving of what is highest in terms of our political priorities as a global political community. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:45:47 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:45:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third Access to Knowledge Conference Message-ID: <20080820184554.CB6861C00083@mwinf2709.orange.fr> FYI Third Access to Knowledge Conference (A2K3) Monday, September 08, 2008 - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 Geneva International Conference Centre (CICG) 17 rue de Varembe, CP 13 CH - 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Access to knowledge (A2K) is essential for promoting human rights, economic and cultural development, innovation, individual freedom and creativity. The Third Access to Knowledge conference (A2K3) will bring together scholars, policymakers, industry, and civil society to discuss key issues in global knowledge policy. Topics will include: the history, impact, and future of the global A2K movement; the relationship between A2K and human rights; A2K and the WIPO Development Agenda; the impact of international trade rules on A2K; copyright exceptions and limitations in the information society; open business models; research and capacity building for A2K; prizes as alternatives to intellectual property monopolies; promoting open access to science and research; technologies of access such as community wireless, open source, and open standards; and public mobilization in the networked and digital global public sphere. The A2K3 conference is organized by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School (Yale ISP), in collaboration with Electronic Information for Libraries (elFL.Net), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Centre for Technology and Society at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas School of Law (FGV) - Rio, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), IQsensato, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), UNU-MERIT and 3D -Trade-Human Rights and Equitable Economy. For more information, please visit the Yale Law School Information Society Project A2K3 conference web site at: http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/7106.htm This conference is made possible with the funding support from FORD FOUNDATION OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE MACARTHUR FOUNDATION Renate Bloem Past CONGO President Civicus UN Geneva Tel: +33450 850815 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 20 15:38:13 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:38:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions In-Reply-To: <48AC29DD.6030800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <8B4C37B8F0254E3DAE774C6A868E51C9@IAN> Hi Jeanette, My understanding is the same as Avri's - the independent chair for Appeals Team Nomcom would only preclude David standing for Appeals Team, and would have no affect at all on future Co-ordinator nominations 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: 21 August 2008 00:28 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Cc: 'Parminder' > Subject: Re: [governance] co-coordinator election results and suggestions > > Many thanks and best wished to Ian also from me. > > Regarding the non-voting chair for the appeals time, I would like to > remind you that volunteers for chairing the caucus so far have not been > abound. If David will be appointed as non-voting chair of the appeals > team, would that prevent him from running for the co-chair position in > the January election? Should that be the case, I personally would hope > that he rather runs again for the position of the co-chair. > I would think it is less difficult to fill the position of the appeals > team chair than finding a good co-chair for the caucus. > jeanette > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Thanks everyone for your best wishes on my election (and expressions of > > sympathy!) here and in my email. It's not without some trepidation that > > I take this on - I've observed here long enough to know just how tough a > > job it will be to co-ordinate, with so many diverse individuals and > > organizations involved. I can promise that I will try to assist and to > > work with you all on improving our capacity to have our voices heard. > > > > > > > > I think the less obtrusive co-ordinators are, the better things will > > work. I can learn a ,lot from those who have preceded me .I would just > > like to work quietly in helping to get consensus, in helping sort out > > process issues, and in generally strengthening the presence and > > credibility of this caucus in advancing internet governance issues. > > > > > > > > Anyway, a couple of things to get the ball rolling. > > > > > > > > Firstly, I note Parminder's reference to being ready to stand down now. > > I have in private email asked Parminder whether he would consider > > staying on until after Hyderabad, so that I as a new Co-ordinator have > > the benefit of his experience during this year's IGF. So my intention, > > if Parminder is willing, would be to hold elections for his replacement > > in January 2009. That gets us into a cycle of an election each calendar > > year after the IGF meeting rather than rushing in two this year. > > > > > > > > In the meantime, we are long overdue for replacing the Appeals Team. > > This is a long process involving a NomCom being formed, calling for > > candidates, and then selecting five new members. If we start now, we > > should be able to complete this by November. It's at least a two month > > process if we follow the Charter. > > > > > > > > I would like to suggest for your advice that David Goldstein be > > appointed as the independent non-voting chair for the Appeals Team > > NomCom.. David, who as you know was the other candidate in co-ordinator > > elections, has written me a very kind personal note and offered to > > assist, and as someone involved in the Caucus and with previous NomComs > > will, I believe, be an excellent person to take on this responsibility. > > > > > > > > The charter suggests that the non voting chair should be appointed by > > the co-ordinators with the advice of the Caucus. I've discussed this > > with Parminder, who also agrees that we should suggest David's name to > > the Caucus for this role. Please then consider this suggestion and > > forward any relevant advice within the next few days so we can get this > > overdue process underway. Next week we should begin the process of > > forming a NomCom for this purpose. > > > > > > > > I'll put out some thoughts under separate headings on a few issues in > > the near future. I certainly support Parminder's suggestion as regards > > seeking a funding base, and also want to suggest a few things as regards > > process issues, improving the website, and improving our capacity to > > exchange strongly held and differing viewpoints on issues without > > resorting to personal attacks. These are some of the priorities I see, > > and I would welcome email from anyone with any suggestions as to how I > > can best assist in furthering our objectives. I look forward to working > > with you all in this role. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Thu Aug 21 00:17:17 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:17:17 +0600 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080820073223.DBDF36A094@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <48AB0BF9.3030606@rits.org.br> <20080820073223.DBDF36A094@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080821040143.0FDD66A0DA@smtp1.electricembers.net> With my little experience in the NomCom I found Ian's high quality professional capacity. I hope as the Coordinator, he will be able to discharge his potentialities. Congratulations to Ian and thanks to Parminder. Best regards, Hakik At 01:32 PM 8/20/2008, Parminder wrote: > >On the issue of the period of co-coordinatorship, Ian’s and mine: > >The last elections were held in November 2006 >immediately after IGF’s first meeting in Athens. >As per the charter the annual elections are to >be held in June of each month, or as close as >possible to it. Each co-coordinator is elected >for 2 years. However, it was found desirable >that both co-coordinators do not change at the >same time and that one of them is replaced each >year. To put this processes into motion the >first set of two co-coordinators were elected >for different terms – one for a year, and the >other for two years. Vittorio was elected for a year and I for two years. > >2007 elections were due in June, 2007, but that >would have given Vittorio only a few months. I >proposed that Vittorio continues till IGF, Rio, >in November, 2007. I also proposed that the IGC >co-coordinator election cycle coincide with the >annual IGFs as the IGF is a primary institution of engagement by the IGC. > >Accordingly, the elections should have been held >soon after Rio. These got postponed for a >variety of reasons which I would not go into now. > >Ian’s term, if the present one to be considered >the 2007 elections, would be till June 2009. But >I suggest that it be till December, 2009, i.e. >the close of IGF-4 in Cairo. And along with the >2009 election we get into a cycle of >co-coordinator elections immediately after the annual IGF meet. > >As for my term, it ends immediately as Ian >decides to hold elections and the new >co-coordinator takes up. These elections are due >and can be conducted at the earliest possible >time. I personally am now keen to step down. > >On another, but connected note, I suggest that >we explore the possibility of developing a >funding proposal for an intern or someone to >support the IGC co-coordinators, plus a couple >of travel grants for the co-coordinators to >attend important meetings. This will immensely >enhance the capacity of the co-coordinators, and >the effectiveness of the caucus. This may not >easy but is worth giving a try with some likely funders. > >The IGF has recognized the IGC’s strong position >in the IG civil society area with a green light >to three workshops sponsored by us plus one that >we co-sponsored. This is a monumental step >forward. However, to meet the consequent >expectations and responsibilities well we need >to pull ourselves together as a more coherent >working unit. Ian is an energetic person driven >by keen purposefulness. I am sure he will >provide us strong leadership in this regard. But >we need to start hearing from the members more, >and more often, on these organizational issues. > >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: -------------- 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 Aug 21 00:55:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:25:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080821045612.4C837A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton > * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" > implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated > to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? Lets go in two steps to reach right to development (a collective right) from the 'negative rights' you subscribe to, through the category of 'positive rights'. First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment of parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. The second step to move towards 'right to development' is to look at another collective right - collective cultural rights - which all countries (not only developing ones) other than the US have agreed to, most recently in signing the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. This treaty to quote a text "fills an existing lacuna for cultural objectives in public international law and to serve as a cultural counterbalance to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in future conflicts between trade and culture." What you mention is a caricature of the right to development (RTD). Right to development (among a few other things) is a moral assertion - seeking insituional/legal applications - that default global institutional systems (as use of FoE for cultural domination, in above case) that are deemed neutral and good for all are often a form of (neo-imperialist?) domination and that that developing countries have a right to challenge such domination. If you read the Right to development document you will find references to a 'new economic order' a couple of time. (a non-hegemonisitc 'new Internet order' may be similarly demanded.) Since you have agreed in an earlier email that 'notions of rights are ideologically conditioned' I must give practical uses of the RTD to justify it. Since you claim that "I just don't think the concept makes any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything". The framework of RTD underpins efforts in global polity on development agendas in WTO, WIPO, NWICO, and why not, claims of perhaps a 'new Internet order'. This claims and subsequent 'victories' have been immensely useful to the people of developing countries. Now if you think RTD is a part of "rights-inflation and sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really damaging to the realization of real human rights", it is as per your above quoted assertion "ideologically condition" in a way different than I am "ideologically conditioned" and therefore I should not debate it any further. But use of words like 'real rights' is against ideological relativism you spoke of. If > my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully > capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, > which declared it? (hah!) To make an illustrative, counterpoint, which tangible party is fully capable of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:40 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research > > Avri, thanks for pondering it. > Just to recall what my objection is, and it's important to be clear > about this: > > * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" > implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated > to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? If > my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully > capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, > which declared it? (hah!) > > * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have > other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic > activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is > an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft > of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups > d'etat, etc.). In such cases, it is very clear who the right is claimed > against and who it constrains or obligates. > > So, please do not think that by denying the existence of a "right to > development" I am unconcerned about the need for economic and social > development in LDCs or elsewhere. I just don't think the concept makes > any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:28 PM > > To: Governance List > > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > > > > > > > On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Parminder and I had a long debate about > > > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic > > instance > > > of > > > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that > > > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment > > > among CS > > > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and > > > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really > > > damaging to the realization of real human rights. > > > > > > ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i > > have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must > > confess, from a philosophical point of view. > > > > being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have > > gotten to a > > point where i think that we fall into a problem between the > > notion of > > basic human rights and those that are derivative from other > > the basic > > human rights. > > > > i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict > > philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view > > anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it > > constitutes agreed > > language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into > > account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). > > > > this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as > > important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to > > achieving > > the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. > > > > > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 21 01:14:31 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:44:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080821040143.0FDD66A0DA@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080821051441.BC7CCE2D72@smtp3.electricembers.net> If none has any objection, I agree to the proposal that the next elections are held after IGF, Hyderabad, and I continue in the position of co-coordinator till then. However, instead of Jan 2009, it is good to hold elections in December of each year, so that after the outgoing co-coordinator have contributed to the immediately post IGF activities, like reports etc, the new coordinator take charge on January 1 giving the new coordinator good time to prepare for the Feb IGF consultations. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Aug 21 02:32:12 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:32:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <20080821045612.4C837A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080821045612.4C837A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080821063212.GC18573@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment of > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments) to provide free and compulsory elementary education. It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the provider is rather obviously implied. I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments. > which tangible party is fully capable > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? All those who could threaten it. I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party. While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are something you would have automatically if there was nobody else taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly delivering something to you, at a cost. If an individual or intranational group have positive rights, it generally means their government has to pay. A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right not to be attacked. But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the other party? A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful. But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually meaningful, applicable to real situations. If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in practice. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 21 03:03:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:33:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <20080821063212.GC18573@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20080821070337.3AF58A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Tapani, As I see it you agree that a positive right like education is a 'real' right. So, now we only have to sort out what does collective rights mean, and if they are 'real'. There are two aspects to it, both based on the fact that nations, though the basic political communities or systems - or polities - are not the only ones.... This should be clearly understood in the real complexity of our socio-political living. In this light the first aspect is - that collective rights, including cultural rights and right to development (including self-determination of best way to develop) are invoked by communities within national systems against the state. Tribal/ aboriginal communities or other communities having very different socio-cultural systems than the 'mainstream' national communities have been special collective rights within national systems in most countries - very certainly, in India. So, there is certainly a real party 'against' which these collective rights, including the RTD, is claimed. The second aspect is at the global level. The very fact that we are discussing these political issues across national political systems and trying to arrive at some common understanding means that we believe in some concept of 'global polity', however weak and different from national polities it may be. (I certainly know, for instance, that Milton, believes in this kind of transnational polity fairly strongly.) To the extent we all do so, the claims are simply 'against' this global polity (in its present shape, and its emergent promise, as well as challenges). With globalization all of are more impacted by global political power - whether properly institutionalized or not - and this fact cannot be lost sight of. This increasingly makes it a 'real party'. I think that would make collective rights like RTD, even at a global level, a 'real right'. A rights discourse underpins - and to that extent precedes institutional systems. It does not necessarily get itself defined from within established institutional systems, though it will always have some kind of reference to them. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment > of > > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments) > to provide free and compulsory elementary education. > It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the > provider is rather obviously implied. > I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments. > > > which tangible party is fully capable > > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? > > All those who could threaten it. > > I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean > you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of > it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party. > > While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't > always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are > something you would have automatically if there was nobody else > taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly > delivering something to you, at a cost. > > If an individual or intranational group have positive rights, > it generally means their government has to pay. > > A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right > not to be attacked. > > But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the > other party? > > A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for > example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies > (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful. > But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually > meaningful, applicable to real situations. > > If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind > of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in > practice. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 21 03:42:24 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:42:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <20080821045612.4C837A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <004301c90363$1e63ea80$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Parminder Once more I'm pleased to tell you I couldn't agree more with your statements and comments, this time about Right to Development. Just two additionnal suggestions : Right to Development should also apply to the ITU, since one of it's main (and in my view the most important) organ is precisely the Telecommunication Development Bureau (ITU-D). Il this regard there is a lot to do and some "cultural revolution" to undertake in this venerable house. Just remember the WSIS commitment in developing ITC resources in DCs through its Action Plan, where the ITU takes a leading role as a coordinator for the Action lines concerned. Second, Right to Development should be introduced in WSIS follow-up process as a substancial part of Ethics and be dealt with accordingly to its importance, not only in Action line C10. I do agree that these aspects are not directly linked to IGF activities, but as far as "governance" is concerned RtD is to be included. Friendliest regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parminder" To: ; "'Milton L Mueller'" ; "'Avri Doria'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:55 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research > > > Milton > >> * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" >> implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated >> to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? > > Lets go in two steps to reach right to development (a collective right) > from > the 'negative rights' you subscribe to, through the category of 'positive > rights'. First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in > the > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment > of > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > The second step to move towards 'right to development' is to look at > another > collective right - collective cultural rights - which all countries (not > only developing ones) other than the US have agreed to, most recently in > signing the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. This treaty to quote > a > text "fills an existing lacuna for cultural objectives in public > international law and to serve as a cultural counterbalance to the World > Trade Organization (WTO) in future conflicts between trade and culture." > > > What you mention is a caricature of the right to development (RTD). Right > to > development (among a few other things) is a moral assertion - seeking > insituional/legal applications - that default global institutional systems > (as use of FoE for cultural domination, in above case) that are deemed > neutral and good for all are often a form of (neo-imperialist?) domination > and that that developing countries have a right to challenge such > domination. If you read the Right to development document you will find > references to a 'new economic order' a couple of time. (a non-hegemonisitc > 'new Internet order' may be similarly demanded.) > > > Since you have agreed in an earlier email that 'notions of rights are > ideologically conditioned' I must give practical uses of the RTD to > justify > it. Since you claim that "I just don't think the concept makes any sense > or > that its assertion accomplishes anything". > > The framework of RTD underpins efforts in global polity on development > agendas in WTO, WIPO, NWICO, and why not, claims of perhaps a 'new > Internet > order'. This claims and subsequent 'victories' have been immensely useful > to > the people of developing countries. > > Now if you think RTD is a part of "rights-inflation and sloppy thinking > about what constitutes basic human rights is really damaging to the > realization of real human rights", it is as per your above quoted > assertion > "ideologically condition" in a way different than I am "ideologically > conditioned" and therefore I should not debate it any further. But use of > words like 'real rights' is against ideological relativism you spoke of. > > If >> my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully >> capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, >> which declared it? (hah!) > > > To make an illustrative, counterpoint, which tangible party is fully > capable > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? > > > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:40 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research >> >> Avri, thanks for pondering it. >> Just to recall what my objection is, and it's important to be clear >> about this: >> >> * The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right" >> implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated >> to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? If >> my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully >> capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly, >> which declared it? (hah!) >> >> * One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have >> other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic >> activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is >> an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft >> of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups >> d'etat, etc.). In such cases, it is very clear who the right is claimed >> against and who it constrains or obligates. >> >> So, please do not think that by denying the existence of a "right to >> development" I am unconcerned about the need for economic and social >> development in LDCs or elsewhere. I just don't think the concept makes >> any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything. >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:28 PM >> > To: Governance List >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research >> > >> > >> > >> > On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> > > Parminder and I had a long debate about >> > > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic >> > instance >> > > of >> > > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that >> > > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment >> > > among CS >> > > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and >> > > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really >> > > damaging to the realization of real human rights. >> > >> > >> > ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i >> > have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must >> > confess, from a philosophical point of view. >> > >> > being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have >> > gotten to a >> > point where i think that we fall into a problem between the >> > notion of >> > basic human rights and those that are derivative from other >> > the basic >> > human rights. >> > >> > i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict >> > philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view >> > anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it >> > constitutes agreed >> > language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into >> > account the get out of rights trump clause - 29). >> > >> > this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as >> > important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to >> > achieving >> > the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights. >> > >> > >> > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 21 03:54:16 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:54:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <20080820182345.D47DB1C0008D@mwinf2723.orange.fr> Message-ID: <004401c90363$1efa1000$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Bonjour Renate I thank you a lot for this very interesting infomation. I'm just finishing an article which is part of a book to be published in autumn (in french : L'Ethique dans la société de l'information, Edition Bruylant, Bruxelles) as a contribution to the follow-up of WSIS Action line C10 with Unesco. I'll incorporate this (for me) new right as one substantive part of ethics in the development process, especially in education and in providing access to ICTs in DCs. All the best for you Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: Renate Bloem (Gmail) To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Parminder' Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research Hi Parminder and all, Thanks for how you expressed so evidently how rights are evolving or become more conscious. FYI, yesterday I attended during the session of the UNWG on the Right to Development the launching of the Implementing the Right to Development - The Role of International Law, a joint publication by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and the Harvard School of Public Health, Program on Human Rights in Development, soon to be online. In the meantime you can find Towards the implementation of the right to development : field-testing and fine-tuning the UN criteria on the right to development in the Kenyan-German parthership / Felix Kirchmeier ; Monika Lüke ; Britt Kalla. - Geneva : Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Geneva Office, [2007]. - 46 S. = 2,3 MB, PDF-File. - Electronic ed.: Genf ; Bonn : FES, 2008 ISBN 978-3-89892-853-3 Die Publikation im PDF-Format http://library.fes.de/cgi-bin/populo/digbib.pl?f_ABC=genf&t_listen=x&sortierung=jab Best Renate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: mardi, 19. août 2008 08:01 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research Hi All Rights to me are a set of basic conditions and purposes of political association of human groups. They are basic, and therefore they cannot be each and every thing which is decided by the concerned political community. However at the same time the nature of political association, and of a political community, is not static. Its members today have the same right to pull together some 'basic' conditions and purposes of their association as someone had in say circa 1823. We know that nature of political communities have undergone great change through history, and the conception of rights can be said to have undergone a corresponding change. It can be no one's case that we have reached the end of history, so I find this thing about lets stick to existing rights a bit difficult to swallow. It is more difficult to accept this for someone from a society that is in the middle of more rapid political evolution than someone in a relatively mature political system. And since, as discussed, changes in conception of rights has directly to do with evolution of a political community, I have great problem with how most analyses of rights as have been seen on this list mostly simply refuse to factor this angle in. (this evolution of political communities also cannot be taken to be going in a given specified direction, a la modernization theory.) Another issue of relevance here is this distinction of some rights needing spending of resources, as if others don't. Go to the stateless parts of Afghanistan, or Sudan, or insurgency bound areas of Kashmir, and you will begin to understand what kind of resource expenditure and systems need to be put in place to ensure the right against bodily harm, what to speak of FoE. Ensuring any right needs work to be done, otherwise they will be self-ensured. And doing any work/ effort means expenditure of resources. So this distinction too, at the bottom, is very fallacious. This is not to say that all political claims are rights, or even that all rights are equally important. Depending on our individual and collective political preferences, some may be more important than the other. And some are most important for all of us. For instance, we will all agree that the right against bodily harm is something extremely basic and important. But there are many grey shades here as political communities evolve. Does the right of children not to work in relatively dangerous conditions derive from this right? (Or, the right not to work at all.) Which all other 'child rights' derive for this right and from others. What are dangerous conditions? At some point just working long hours can be considered dangerous. Can then working long hours for adults also be considered dangerous?. Does then, the right to have a decent livelihood without working in 'dangerous conditions' become a right derived from the right against bodily harm. Does it mean anything, or help, to christen a new set of rights as child rights or labour rights, or is it blasphemous to the basic ideals of human rights. Who decides when this point of blasphemy is reached? It is amusing that people could argue that we should close the list of rights - as the list of states who can legally pursue nuclear weapon programs is official closed - when we, for instance, in India, see daily struggles of people to claim basic political rights, through grassroots movements, constructing these rights collectively, through new political consciousness. There is this right to livelihood struggle by tribals whose forest inhabitation is taken away by 'civilized' people carried self-certified documents based on right to property, and its 'legal' adjudication (reminds of something long back in the US ??). People dying with AIDS in millions when there are medicines that are not allowed to be produced by them (local companies) for self-consumption in the name of intellectual property rights. And therefore there is a (counter) political assertion of a right to health. This are only a few vignettes of the political struggles of a big number of people which are very conveniently sought to be excluded by some, from conceptions of what is political most important and non-negotiable - 'our' rights (whose??). This doesn't mean that we can talk about rights loosely. No not at all. These are, by definition, issues of highest importance to human life. But neither one should seek to freeze an arbitrary codification for everyone about what is of highest importance to human life for different political communities (including for the global community, whose 'political community' nature is increasingly stronger, and therefore we should be more careful than ever of political dominations, even if in the name of human rights.) In fact, at a seminar organized by IT for Change a few years back a social activist strongly challenged the conception of 'communication rights' as being un-connected to any people's movement or people's perspectives. She was strongly of the opinion that one has to be careful putting things in a 'rights framework', and not doing so devalues people's struggles (not only Indian people's struggles but as much as those of French, and American whose struggles underlie some very important rights). I have not brought this subject up with her but I expect her to criticize a conception of a possible 'right to the Internet' from the same perspective. I don't think she will be right in doing so, but I do agree with her framework of critique. But I don't agree with the frameworks of defending 'existing rights' and negating any other conceptions that seek refuge in UDHR as 'the' rights document or in negative-positive right distinctions. Instead, let us be tuned in to people's political realities and struggles which give shape to rights. There is no other yardstick of 'deciding on' what can be or cant be rights. Such essentialism is self serving for the respective political ideologies professed by the protagonists. (No, it is not neo-imperialism - at least, not yet :-) ) Since we are discussing rights as a part of an advocacy group (which concerns social change), I think we should, in my view, be more tuned with real frontiers of social change, and deep political realities of these frontiers. And since this is a global group, I think its political legitimacy lies in being globally inclusive in conceiving of what is highest in terms of our political priorities as a global political community. 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: -------------- 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 Aug 21 04:34:40 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:34:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <20080821070337.3AF58A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426166@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here are my five cents: In the 1970s/1980s, when the idea of 3rd generation human rights (or "collective rights") emerged it was not only the right to development and the right to peace (and the right to communicate) but also the right to environment, which was seen as a "collective human right" which belongs both to the individual and to all peoples. The understanding of "environment" in those days was "natural environment" like clean air, clean water, clean forest etc. If we understand cyberspace as "environment" in the information society, a discussion on the elements of such an "eEnvironement" could make sense. I heard arguments in the last years that access to the Internet should be seen like access to fresh air. You open the window and have access to the "virtual (broadband) air". The problem with the "collective rights" is that it opens the door also for a interpretation which sees these rights mainly as the right of "governments". With other words, reopening the collective rights debate you risk to create a conflict between 1st (civl and political) and 2nd (social, economic and cultural) generation "individual rights" and 3rd and 4th generation "collective rights". To make clear from the very beginning, that a "collective right" in cyberspace is based on and includes the individual rights of individual Internet users is of central importance. Otherwise it is seen by some governments as an invitation to justify all kinds of restrictions against individuals to protect unspecified and ill defined "other values". Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Do 21.08.2008 09:03 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' Betreff: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research Tapani, As I see it you agree that a positive right like education is a 'real' right. So, now we only have to sort out what does collective rights mean, and if they are 'real'. There are two aspects to it, both based on the fact that nations, though the basic political communities or systems - or polities - are not the only ones.... This should be clearly understood in the real complexity of our socio-political living. In this light the first aspect is - that collective rights, including cultural rights and right to development (including self-determination of best way to develop) are invoked by communities within national systems against the state. Tribal/ aboriginal communities or other communities having very different socio-cultural systems than the 'mainstream' national communities have been special collective rights within national systems in most countries - very certainly, in India. So, there is certainly a real party 'against' which these collective rights, including the RTD, is claimed. The second aspect is at the global level. The very fact that we are discussing these political issues across national political systems and trying to arrive at some common understanding means that we believe in some concept of 'global polity', however weak and different from national polities it may be. (I certainly know, for instance, that Milton, believes in this kind of transnational polity fairly strongly.) To the extent we all do so, the claims are simply 'against' this global polity (in its present shape, and its emergent promise, as well as challenges). With globalization all of are more impacted by global political power - whether properly institutionalized or not - and this fact cannot be lost sight of. This increasingly makes it a 'real party'. I think that would make collective rights like RTD, even at a global level, a 'real right'. A rights discourse underpins - and to that extent precedes institutional systems. It does not necessarily get itself defined from within established institutional systems, though it will always have some kind of reference to them. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment > of > > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments) > to provide free and compulsory elementary education. > It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the > provider is rather obviously implied. > I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments. > > > which tangible party is fully capable > > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? > > All those who could threaten it. > > I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean > you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of > it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party. > > While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't > always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are > something you would have automatically if there was nobody else > taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly > delivering something to you, at a cost. > > If an individual or intranational group have positive rights, > it generally means their government has to pay. > > A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right > not to be attacked. > > But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the > other party? > > A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for > example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies > (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful. > But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually > meaningful, applicable to real situations. > > If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind > of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in > practice. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 21 04:41:42 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:41:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080821051441.BC7CCE2D72@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080821051441.BC7CCE2D72@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >If none has any objection, I agree to the proposal that the next >elections are held after IGF, Hyderabad, and I continue in the >position of co-coordinator till then. > >However, instead of Jan 2009, it is good to hold elections in >December of each year, so that after the outgoing co-coordinator >have contributed to the immediately post IGF activities, like >reports etc, the new coordinator take charge on January 1 giving the >new coordinator good time to prepare for the Feb IGF consultations. > I think this is a very sensible suggestion. It would be good to get elections out of the way before any deadline for contributions to the next consultations. Can't be sure they will always be held in February but it certainly is the pattern. I also want to thank Parminder. It's hard enough trying to coordinate the caucus when there are two, it seems Parminder's been alone for much of his term. Many thanks to him. And congratulations Ian! Best, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 21 06:24:30 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:24:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Contributions for the September consultations Message-ID: Hi, Contributions for the 16 September open consultations are online . 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 21 07:22:25 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:22:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: website update and missing agency Message-ID: <008101c90380$3248aa50$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> FYI JLF ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: contact at ungis.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:51 AM Subject: website update and missing agency Sorry for second posting : some mistakes corrected ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: contact at ungis.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:38 AM Subject: Update the web and missing agency Dear Madam, Sir I'd be grateful to you for up-dating your website (cf. "What's new" indicating the "last" event in may 07). Second, I wonder why the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) isn't a member of UNGIS. In my opinion this is a big mistake since ICT deployment and applications are strongly needed in any survey of the climate change process and other environment aspects and issues (i.a. sustainable resource management and use). Conversely, renewable energy is key to ICT deployment in DCs especially in Africa. Third, according to CS sources there will likely be a meeting at Geneva, under the auspices of UNGIS. This meeting is part of the WSIS follow-up process and is dedicated to the financing issues of the WSIS outcomes, particularly the objectives of its Action Plan. Could you kindly keep me informed about this event ? Eventually, I'm the deputy chair of the CS WG on Financing Mechanisms for Development in WSIS. Thanks in advance (and excuse my bad English) Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack President of the French NGO CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) accredited to the WSIS since its very beginning -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Thu Aug 21 09:54:36 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:54:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] [Coalition] Fwd: IGF Hub proposal Message-ID: for info. Adam >From: Katitza Rodriguez Pereda >To: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:36:04 -0300 >Subject: [Coalition] Fwd: IGF Hub proposal > >Dear all > >Find enclose a proposal for remote participation >for the next IGF Meeting send by Marilia Maciel >from DiploFoundation. I hope some of you would >like to start a hub in your own country. > >Best, Katitza > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: "Marilia Maciel" ><mariliamaciel at gmail.com> >Date: August 21, 2008 10:09:18 AM GMT-03:00 >To: "Katitza Rodriguez Pereda" ><katitza at datos-personales.org>, >"Carolina Rossini" ><carolina.rossini at gmail.com> >Subject: Re: IGF Hub proposal > >Hello Kati! > >Some of Diplo people and other interested >parties have joined together a few months ago to >study and propose channels of remote attendance >in the IGF. We have examined different options >and we have been in touch with the IGF Hyderabad >organizers and with the Secretariat. > >We have proposed the idea of creating local IGF >hubs, which, in brief, would be local meetings >that would exhibit the webcast of the IGF >sessions, followed by a discussion of issues >related to the themes debated in the IGF that >are locally relevant. I enclose below a document >that explains in detail what are the hubs, the >main objectives and requirements to develop this >activity. > >Up to now, some groups have showed interest to >develop local hubs, such as the CGI, the >Stanford Center and a group in India. Others are >studying the possibility. > >If you could help us to spread the word about this project, it would be great! > >Hugs! >Marília > >IGF Remote Participation Project > >Presenting the hubs initiative > >1) Objective: >To develop partnerships with regional >organizations and communities with the aim to >create local IGF hubs. These hubs would be local >meetings, which would exhibit the webcast of the >IGF as well as hold panels and roundtables, to >discuss the themes of the IGF from a local >perspective. This forum should serve as a >stimulus or a starting point for the debate of >local issues and implications and for the >development of a network of interested people. > >2) Some reasons that support the creation of hubs   >2.1. Increases the visibility of the meeting. >The local press will more likely cover a local >event than one that takes place overseas. In >addition to that, the engagement of civil >society in organizing the hubs is a natural >publicity and promotion that reaches all the >larger local and regional community gathered >around it.  >2.2. Raises awareness. As a consequence of an >increased visibility, the society in general >becomes more aware of the importance of the >subjects discussed at the IGF. The civil society >plays an important role in getting in touch with >possible stakeholders (NGO's, politicians, >government representatives, economic sector, >academics, etc) and convincing them of the >importance of the subject and of their presence >by being involved on the process.  >2.3. Favors commitment. When a person solitarily >watches a broadcasted meeting he/she feels free >to drop it anytime and may never be involved >with the subject again. When he's on the company >of others and discusses the subject with them a >sense of commitment with the group may flourish.  >2.4. Favors community building. This sense of >commitment can evolve into a structured >relationship among stakeholders .  >2.5. Provides networking. People can identify >common interests and establish different kinds >of partnerships. The hubs fully accomplish the >second reason appointed here for people to be >engaged on this experience.  >2.6. Favors follow-up initiatives. People may >feel motivated not only to follow the measures >taken in the global sphere, but also to develop >local actions. Through local discussion, people >can agree on measures to take and share tasks >and responsibility.This experience encourages >collaboration and rises local initiatives. > >3) Support provided to the local hubs >3.1) High quality webcast, with technical assistance >3.2) Publicity for the hub in the organization >homepage, in the project homepage as well as in >preparatory meetings and discussion forums > >4) What is necessary to create a local hub? >The hubs can be held by any group of interested >people. Each local group can propose and develop >a methodology for the meeting, according to its >needs. In general, the organization of the hubs >does not demand high investments of time and >resources. We suggest: >4.1) A four day activity (3-6 of December), on >flexible hours (but the hubs are free to adjust >this to their needs) >4.2) A room or auditorium. It can be held at an >university class or any other convenient place >in the city >4.3) a broadband Internet connection and a >video-conference (or projector) equipment. >4.4) A server >4.5) A moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the discussion >4.6) A general call in lists, forums, etc, to >invite the local community interested in >Information Society and Internet Governance > >5) What are the modes of participation from the hub? >5.1) Projection of a 2 minutes statement from >remote hubs in the main session at the IGF.  >5.2) People attending the hubs will be able to >benefit from the regular channels of >participation: >a) Incorporated link for making an interactive >recording of audio or video similar to >"Youtube", "Seesmic" or "Quik", for broadcast in >IGF sessions as comments or questions (In >discussion with the IGF organization) >b) Chat >c) Open channel for discussions (fora) including >theme-specific and moderated help forum for >newcomers to the IGF > >Any interested group can have more information >in www.igfremote.com >or send a mail to >mariliamaciel at gmail.com > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Coalition mailing list >Coalition at mailman.epic.org >http://right.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/coalition ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Aug 21 10:02:13 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:02:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: website update and missing agency Message-ID: <00ab01c90396$85479b10$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear members of the governance list I beg your pardon for having posted this message to the list. It was intended to another address Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:22 PM Subject: Fw: website update and missing agency FYI JLF ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: contact at ungis.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:51 AM Subject: website update and missing agency Sorry for second posting : some mistakes corrected ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: contact at ungis.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:38 AM Subject: Update the web and missing agency Jean-Louis Fullsack President of the French NGO CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) accredited to the WSIS since its very beginning -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 21 10:06:08 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 21 Aug 2008 14:06:08 -0000 Subject: [governance] Rights of the other 99.9% - privacy, ICANN, whois In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA42@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> Put crudely, money and power led to IP rights trumping privacy >> rights. I doubt I'll change anyone's mind here, but I do think it's worth pointing out that the WHOIS issue is far more complex than the evil trademark lawyers vs. innocent users that it is often portrayed in forums like these. Personally, I see it more as vanity domain registrants vs. the other 99.9% of Internet users. It's true, people can find you if your information is in WHOIS. On the other hand, the assumption that registering a domain places no obligations on the registrant beyond paying the ten bucks is absurd. The vast majority of domains are registered for commercial purposes, some for legitimate commercial purposes, a lot for illegitimate commercial purposes. Bad guys use domains for all sorts of egregious privacy violations, from so-called co-reg where they get you to provide your e-mail address and other personal information and then sell it to a thousand sleazy businesses, to phishing, to outright fraud, to 419 scams. WHOIS info, even in its current rather imperfect form, is extremely useful when locating, shutting down, and occasionally even prosecuting these bad guys. So although I do not for a minute disagree that natural persons who register domains have privacy rights, people who don't have their own domains have privacy rights too, and there are a lot more people without domains than with. If the WHOIS privacy crowd admitted that they were trying to carve out an exception for the sliver of domains registered by individuals, they might make some progress. As it is, there's an alliance of convenience between the trademark lawyers (who are indeed evil) and various formal and informal law enforcement (who are trying to deal with evil) that has valid arguments in favor of public WHOIS and aren't going away. 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Aug 21 10:05:30 2008 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:05:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF Hub proposal References: Message-ID: Dear all Marilia Maciel from Diplo Foundation among other Diplo associates just send me this proposal that I hope some of you could take the lead. I hope this info. is useful for you. Best, Katitza Begin forwarded message: > From: "Marilia Maciel" > Date: August 21, 2008 10:09:18 AM GMT-03:00 > To: "Katitza Rodriguez Pereda" , > "Carolina Rossini" > Subject: Re: IGF Hub proposal > > Hello Kati! > > Some of Diplo people and other interested parties have joined > together a few months ago to study and propose channels of remote > attendance in the IGF. We have examined different options and we > have been in touch with the IGF Hyderabad organizers and with the > Secretariat. > > We have proposed the idea of creating local IGF hubs, which, in > brief, would be local meetings that would exhibit the webcast of the > IGF sessions, followed by a discussion of issues related to the > themes debated in the IGF that are locally relevant. I enclose below > a document that explains in detail what are the hubs, the main > objectives and requirements to develop this activity. > Up to now, some groups have showed interest to develop local hubs, > such as the CGI, the Stanford Center and a group in India. Others > are studying the possibility. > > If you could help us to spread the word about this project, it would > be great! > > Hugs! > Marília > > IGF Remote Participation Project > Presenting the hubs initiative > > 1) Objective: > To develop partnerships with regional organizations and communities > with the aim to create local IGF hubs. These hubs would be local > meetings, which would exhibit the webcast of the IGF as well as hold > panels and roundtables, to discuss the themes of the IGF from a > local perspective. This forum should serve as a stimulus or a > starting point for the debate of local issues and implications and > for the development of a network of interested people. > 2) Some reasons that support the creation of hubs > 2.1. Increases the visibility of the meeting. The local press will > more likely cover a local event than one that takes place overseas. > In addition to that, the engagement of civil society in organizing > the hubs is a natural publicity and promotion that reaches all the > larger local and regional community gathered around it. > 2.2. Raises awareness. As a consequence of an increased visibility, > the society in general becomes more aware of the importance of the > subjects discussed at the IGF. The civil society plays an important > role in getting in touch with possible stakeholders (NGO's, > politicians, government representatives, economic sector, academics, > etc) and convincing them of the importance of the subject and of > their presence by being involved on the process. > 2.3. Favors commitment. When a person solitarily watches a > broadcasted meeting he/she feels free to drop it anytime and may > never be involved with the subject again. When he's on the company > of others and discusses the subject with them a sense of commitment > with the group may flourish. > 2.4. Favors community building. This sense of commitment can evolve > into a structured relationship among stakeholders . > 2.5. Provides networking. People can identify common interests and > establish different kinds of partnerships. The hubs fully accomplish > the second reason appointed here for people to be engaged on this > experience. > 2.6. Favors follow-up initiatives. People may feel motivated not > only to follow the measures taken in the global sphere, but also to > develop local actions. Through local discussion, people can agree on > measures to take and share tasks and responsibility.This experience > encourages collaboration and rises local initiatives. > > 3) Support provided to the local hubs > 3.1) High quality webcast, with technical assistance > 3.2) Publicity for the hub in the organization homepage, in the > project homepage as well as in preparatory meetings and discussion > forums > > 4) What is necessary to create a local hub? > The hubs can be held by any group of interested people. Each local > group can propose and develop a methodology for the meeting, > according to its needs. In general, the organization of the hubs > does not demand high investments of time and resources. We suggest: > 4.1) A four day activity (3-6 of December), on flexible hours (but > the hubs are free to adjust this to their needs) > 4.2) A room or auditorium. It can be held at an university class or > any other convenient place in the city > 4.3) a broadband Internet connection and a video-conference (or > projector) equipment. > 4.4) A server > 4.5) A moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the discussion > 4.6) A general call in lists, forums, etc, to invite the local > community interested in Information Society and Internet Governance > > 5) What are the modes of participation from the hub? > 5.1) Projection of a 2 minutes statement from remote hubs in the > main session at the IGF. > 5.2) People attending the hubs will be able to benefit from the > regular channels of participation: > a) Incorporated link for making an interactive recording of audio or > video similar to "Youtube", "Seesmic" or "Quik", for broadcast in > IGF sessions as comments or questions (In discussion with the IGF > organization) > b) Chat > c) Open channel for discussions (fora) including theme-specific and > moderated help forum for newcomers to the IGF > > Any interested group can have more information in www.igfremote.com > or send a mail to mariliamaciel at gmail.com > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > wrote: > Sure, I know her. Marilia. feel free to write an email and I will > see to whom I could introduce you. I cant follow up with them due to > little time but I could introduce you > I am sure I will connect you with the right person If I know one > that I think could help you in your proposal. To make all this easy, > please send me a formal email that I can forward to my colleagues > > > Cheers > > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > katitza at datos-personales.org > > > > > On Aug 20, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > Kati, > > I would like to introduce you to Marilia. > Actually, I am pretty sure you both met during the IGF in Brazil. > Marilia is also from Diplo community and is coordinating a > initiative related to HUBs for remote participation at the IGF. > > I thought you may be able to help her spreading this call around > Latin America. Mainly, she is looking for institutions to host the > local hubs. She can give you more information. > > In USA, i am talking to Berkman, Yale A2K, American university in DC > and another colleague is talking to others. > > Hugs, > > Carol > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Thu Aug 21 10:38:22 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights of the other 99.9% - privacy, ICANN, whois In-Reply-To: <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA42@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> Put crudely, money and power led to IP rights trumping privacy >>> rights. > > I doubt I'll change anyone's mind here, but I do think it's worth > pointing out that the WHOIS issue is far more complex than the evil > trademark lawyers vs. innocent users that it is often portrayed in > forums like these. Full ACK. > It's true, people can find you if your information is in WHOIS. > If the WHOIS privacy crowd admitted that they were trying to carve > out an exception for the sliver of domains registered by individuals, > they might make some progress. As it is, there's an alliance of > convenience between the trademark lawyers (who are indeed evil) and > various formal and informal law enforcement including network engineers who use IP addressing WHOIS databases extensively for troubleshooting, etc. (who are trying to deal > with evil) that has valid arguments in favor of public WHOIS and > aren't going away. Not to mention that registries often obscure ones email address and other data from being shown to every spammer in the world who uses WHOIS. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Aug 21 16:59:00 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:59:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights of the other 99.9% - privacy, ICANN, whois In-Reply-To: <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA42@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA6A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > If the WHOIS privacy crowd admitted that they were trying to carve > out an exception for the sliver of domains registered by individuals, > they might make some progress. As it is, there's an alliance of > convenience between the trademark lawyers (who are indeed evil) and > various formal and informal law enforcement (who are trying to deal > with evil) that has valid arguments in favor of public WHOIS and > aren't going away. Massive groan..... I'm sorry, but John has followed the Whois debates closely enough to know that privacy advocates DID propose to carve out natural persons as the ONLY category of user whose Whois data would be shielded. And at the time we estimated openly that that applied to only about 20% of the domain holders, although no one knows for sure. It's documented in this report: gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf On page 33: AGREED: 􀂃 A distinction between legal and natural persons must be made. 􀂃 This distinction must be made by the Registrant at the moment of registration. 􀂃 There is no need for validation or a challenge mechanism to this selfdeclaration at the moment of registration so long as a post-registration mechanism exists. AGREED: The implication of this declaration is that the public display of WHOIS records must be different in the following way: Legal person: Full display of all WHOIS records Natural person: Limited display of WHOIS records Levine opposed the proposed change anyway. Now he claims that this was never on the table. Draw your own conclusions about the man's veracity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 20 19:11:43 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:11:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080821045612.4C837A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080821063212.GC18573@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <48ACA4AF.E32AE165@ix.netcom.com> Tapani and all, Fully agreed here. And nicely argued as well... Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment of > > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments) > to provide free and compulsory elementary education. > It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the > provider is rather obviously implied. > I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments. > > > which tangible party is fully capable > > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? > > All those who could threaten it. > > I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean > you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of > it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party. > > While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't > always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are > something you would have automatically if there was nobody else > taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly > delivering something to you, at a cost. > > If an individual or intranational group have positive rights, > it generally means their government has to pay. > > A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right > not to be attacked. > > But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the > other party? > > A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for > example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies > (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful. > But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually > meaningful, applicable to real situations. > > If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind > of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in > practice. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 20 19:14:45 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:14:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <20080821070337.3AF58A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48ACA565.DF2721A5@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, I would have to logically suppose that what is "Real" in one culture might not be in another. What is a "Education" in one sense and culture, might be only propaganda or indoctranation in others. And so forth and so on... Parminder wrote: > Tapani, > > As I see it you agree that a positive right like education is a 'real' > right. So, now we only have to sort out what does collective rights mean, > and if they are 'real'. > > There are two aspects to it, both based on the fact that nations, though the > basic political communities or systems - or polities - are not the only > ones.... This should be clearly understood in the real complexity of our > socio-political living. > > In this light the first aspect is - that collective rights, including > cultural rights and right to development (including self-determination of > best way to develop) are invoked by communities within national systems > against the state. Tribal/ aboriginal communities or other communities > having very different socio-cultural systems than the 'mainstream' national > communities have been special collective rights within national systems in > most countries - very certainly, in India. > > So, there is certainly a real party 'against' which these collective rights, > including the RTD, is claimed. > > The second aspect is at the global level. The very fact that we are > discussing these political issues across national political systems and > trying to arrive at some common understanding means that we believe in some > concept of 'global polity', however weak and different from national > polities it may be. (I certainly know, for instance, that Milton, believes > in this kind of transnational polity fairly strongly.) > > To the extent we all do so, the claims are simply 'against' this global > polity (in its present shape, and its emergent promise, as well as > challenges). With globalization all of are more impacted by global political > power - whether properly institutionalized or not - and this fact cannot be > lost sight of. This increasingly makes it a 'real party'. I think that would > make collective rights like RTD, even at a global level, a 'real right'. > > A rights discourse underpins - and to that extent precedes institutional > systems. It does not necessarily get itself defined from within established > institutional systems, though it will always have some kind of reference to > them. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:02 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > > > UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment > > of > > > parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > > > As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments) > > to provide free and compulsory elementary education. > > It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the > > provider is rather obviously implied. > > I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments. > > > > > which tangible party is fully capable > > > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand??? > > > > All those who could threaten it. > > > > I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean > > you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of > > it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party. > > > > While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't > > always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are > > something you would have automatically if there was nobody else > > taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly > > delivering something to you, at a cost. > > > > If an individual or intranational group have positive rights, > > it generally means their government has to pay. > > > > A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right > > not to be attacked. > > > > But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the > > other party? > > > > A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for > > example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies > > (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful. > > But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually > > meaningful, applicable to real situations. > > > > If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind > > of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in > > practice. > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 20 19:28:47 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:28:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights of the other 99.9% - privacy, ICANN, whois References: <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <48ACA8AF.3A9D6901@ix.netcom.com> John and all, I'm assuming that you are including small business, either commercial or non-commercial in your definition inclusive of the majority of domain names registered? If so, try to recognize, which I am sure is difficult for you, that small businesses cannot be bothered nor afford financially continuos inquiries by LEA's or members of the IPC, vis a vi RIAA/MPAA lawyers and their private detectives of various sorts and limits of legitimacy, into their personnel affairs, activities, or other business affairs of most types. Ergo, registrant privacy is necessary and economically beneficial. What's far more important is that Whois data is accurate. John Levine wrote: > >> Put crudely, money and power led to IP rights trumping privacy > >> rights. > > I doubt I'll change anyone's mind here, but I do think it's worth > pointing out that the WHOIS issue is far more complex than the evil > trademark lawyers vs. innocent users that it is often portrayed in > forums like these. Personally, I see it more as vanity domain > registrants vs. the other 99.9% of Internet users. > > It's true, people can find you if your information is in WHOIS. On > the other hand, the assumption that registering a domain places no > obligations on the registrant beyond paying the ten bucks is absurd. > The vast majority of domains are registered for commercial purposes, > some for legitimate commercial purposes, a lot for illegitimate > commercial purposes. Bad guys use domains for all sorts of egregious > privacy violations, from so-called co-reg where they get you to > provide your e-mail address and other personal information and then > sell it to a thousand sleazy businesses, to phishing, to outright > fraud, to 419 scams. WHOIS info, even in its current rather imperfect > form, is extremely useful when locating, shutting down, and occasionally > even prosecuting these bad guys. > > So although I do not for a minute disagree that natural persons who > register domains have privacy rights, people who don't have their own > domains have privacy rights too, and there are a lot more people > without domains than with. > > If the WHOIS privacy crowd admitted that they were trying to carve > out an exception for the sliver of domains registered by individuals, > they might make some progress. As it is, there's an alliance of > convenience between the trademark lawyers (who are indeed evil) and > various formal and informal law enforcement (who are trying to deal > with evil) that has valid arguments in favor of public WHOIS and > aren't going away. > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 20 19:50:47 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:50:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights of the other 99.9% - privacy, ICANN, whois References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA42@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080821140608.72522.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DCA6A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48ACADD7.1119944A@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Thank you for the proper refrence, and also thank you for the correct clarification regarding John's flexing position. Yet we should not denegrate John's changeing positions as their may be good reason for such as much as there may not be. My and our members position remains still unchanged in Whois managment. At this time, I don't see that position already clearly and frequently articulated, changing. Individual and personel privacy is a right that too many have fought for, and some/too many have given their very lives for. The Internet and the DNS not withstanding. The fact that we are engaged in a global war on Terrorism in no way changes or justifies reducing or abrogating privacy rights. And in fact, Ben Franklin was right now as he was in his own time... Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > > > > If the WHOIS privacy crowd admitted that they were trying to carve > > out an exception for the sliver of domains registered by individuals, > > they might make some progress. As it is, there's an alliance of > > convenience between the trademark lawyers (who are indeed evil) and > > various formal and informal law enforcement (who are trying to deal > > with evil) that has valid arguments in favor of public WHOIS and > > aren't going away. > > Massive groan..... > > I'm sorry, but John has followed the Whois debates closely enough to know that privacy advocates DID propose to carve out natural persons as the ONLY category of user whose Whois data would be shielded. And at the time we estimated openly that that applied to only about 20% of the domain holders, although no one knows for sure. > > It's documented in this report: gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf > On page 33: > > AGREED: > ô€‚ƒ A distinction between legal and natural persons must be made. > ô€‚ƒ This distinction must be made by the Registrant at the moment of > registration. > ô€‚ƒ There is no need for validation or a challenge mechanism to this selfdeclaration > at the moment of registration so long as a post-registration > mechanism exists. > > AGREED: > The implication of this declaration is that the public display of WHOIS records > must be different in the following way: > Legal person: Full display of all WHOIS records > Natural person: Limited display of WHOIS records > > Levine opposed the proposed change anyway. Now he claims that this was never on the table. Draw your own conclusions about the man's veracity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 21 20:20:29 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:20:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] Netiquete Reminder Message-ID: <79A03E56D2FF48F3BFDC7445C967EC72@IAN> This is just a periodic reminder as regards netiquette on this list. I intend to post something similar from time to time as a reminder to myself as much as to anyone else. Our charter provides a few minimal netiquette guidelines. These include "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated messages (flames) even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames." It's part of the nature of email that messages can be easily misunderstood, which means we have to be even more careful in our choice of words than we might in ordinary face to conversation. If there is a simple rule we can apply when we are dealing with issues we feel passionately about, it would be to concentrate on the issues, not on the person. Be hard on the issues, soft on the person. And we don't need to respond to insults and inflame the situation - most people on this list know a personal insult when they see one, and the insult says a lot more about the person making the insult than it does the intended targets. No point in highlighting it. Some things are best let pass. The Charter also outlines some specific measures the co-ordinators may take in response to personal insults, spam, or other deliberate disruptions. These include suspensions from the list. I would hope never to need to activate a suspension, but it is important that we keep on mission here. Thanks, Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 22 01:25:35 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:25:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <200808210456.m7L4uBUo023354@mx4.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841C1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> These responses are somewhat perfunctory, but no time for much more.... -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Lets go in two steps to reach right to development (a collective >right) from the 'negative rights' you subscribe to, through the > category of 'positive First, I don't believe in "collective rights" and it is not difficult to prove logically that collective rights are incompatible with the notion of equal rights. It takes you back to the pre-modern notion of castes, estates, or classes, each with different privileges and claims. And of course, these collective claims, being unique to each group, must always clash against each other and lead to irreconcilable social conflict. People are part of dozens and perhaps hundreds of different groups and collectivities. All of them can organize to place demands on the state. Those are not rights, that's just politics and policy. What society needs to maintain justice are clear, common, equal rights assigned to individuals. That preserves and protects their ability to form and participate in collectivities as they please, and prevents one group from dominating or abusing another. I think it was Cees Hamelinck who once said that you couldn't possibly protect religious minorities without some notion of collective rights. To me an obviously false assertion; we have protected religious and cultural minorities for centuries by assuring individuals freedom of association, freedom of expression and religion, all individual rights unrelated to a collectivity. Historically the notion of collective rights is as likely to be used to justify ethnic cleansing, social dominance of one group over another and even genocide as it is to protect minorities. Only way to avoid that is to appeal to a higher level, liberal notion of the individual rights of the people within the groups. >First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the >UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment of >parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. A right to education is at least meaningful, but it is obviously an individual right. Or do you believe that one's right to education varies with one's race, culture, etc? While that might be more consistent with your collectivist bent, you can see where it would lead and the risk of abuse it creates. Aside from that, as Tapani pointed out these positive "rights" are contingent upon the ability and willingness of other people to provide the necessary resources, labor etc. "Moral assertions" as you put it, don't generate the resources necessary to deliver the goods. So while I believe that universal education is a Good Thing, and even that wealth redistribution is often justified to achieve it, I would not put education in the same category as the more basic "negative" rights. Note also that such positive rights require the state to define what is "education" and often (though not necessarily) to monopolize its delivery and crush minority religions and cultures in the process. But never mind that, you've made a moral assertion, so nothing immoral could ever come of it, eh? >collective right - collective cultural rights - which all countries (not >only developing ones) other than the US have agreed to, most recently in I think so-called collective cultural rights are about 80% cultural and economic protectionism, and about 20% a legitimate attempt to carve out a role for publicly funded culture, which I don't view as being all that threatening, or threatened. > Right to >development (among a few other things) is a moral assertion - seeking >insituional/legal applications - that default global institutional systems >(as use of FoE for cultural domination, in above case) that are deemed >neutral and good for all are often a form of (neo-imperialist?) domination >and that that developing countries have a right to challenge such >domination. No offense, but that sentence is too ungrammatical to respond to. But if I understand it, I would simply reply that you can challenge political domination without asserting a fictitious RTD -- and did you know that people have actually done it for centuries? > If you read the Right to development document you will find >references to a 'new economic order' a couple of time. (a non-hegemonisitc >'new Internet order' may be similarly demanded.) I don't need to read that document, I've read all the NWICO documents and am familiar with the "New Economic Order," The New World Information Order," and the "New World Information and Communication Order." and all the related aging 1970s-vintage ideology. "New Internet Order," eh? Wow, what an original idea! I hope you are impressed with what, after 30-40 years, those "new economic orders" produced. >The framework of RTD underpins efforts in global polity on development >agendas in WTO, WIPO, NWICO, and why not, claims of perhaps a 'new Internet >order'. In the WTO, as we discussed before, the assertion of RTD has no connection to the legitimate attempt of developing countries to resist American and European efforts to open markets they can compete in (like IPR) and keep closed agriculture and immigration, where they were not competitive. Nor do you need it to bargain for better terms of trade. The WIPO development agenda has made accomplishments but I see no connection whatsoever between a RTD and those accomplishments. One does not have to assert a "right" to development to claim that royalty collection for MNCs should not be the only priority for WIPO. In other words, development is an objective, a goal of policy. When other claims or goals conflict with development, it is perfectly legitimate to assert development as a higher value. We can agree on that. No need to misdefine it as a human right. Development as policy objective involves a careful attempt to find policies that actually lead to development. (And once you do that you might actually discover that less state and more market is in needed in many situations. Horrors!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 21 04:22:03 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:22:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Rights?: Canadian Privacy Czar Wants To Anonymize Court Records On the Web Message-ID: <48AD25AB.36275360@ix.netcom.com> All, again on the subject of an "Internet Bill of Rights" consider the following: Vint, you might want to share this with David Eun and Eric. The web is evil and must be stopped because it makes public information too public. So says Canada's Privacy Commissioner. She wants to http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/481857 'anonymize' court records by substituting initials for names. The Toronto Star quotes Jennifer Stodddart as saying 'The open court rule, which is extremely historically important, has now become distorted by the effect of massive search engines... Court decisions and other related documents, which contain all sorts of personal information, are now searchable worldwide, which was never intended when openness rules were devised.' All Stoddart's proposal would do is erect a minor barrier for the techno unsaavy. Researchers, reporters, geeks, and most teenagers would still be able to figure out who's who. Stoddart seems to believe only in an abstract notion of freedom and access but only as long as not too many people use it and no one suffers. She cites the case of someone who is upset at reading the divorce case of her parents. Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless? Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 21 04:33:11 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:33:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <200808210456.m7L4uBUo023354@mx4.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841C1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48AD2847.DB38002A@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Horrors indeed! You make a very good argument that collective rights are more policy objectives than they are or include any actual "Right" in a "Real" sense. Individual Rights as they apply to the Internet, are much more important, and as you I believe rightly assert, are "Rights" that are far more "Real" and therefore effective as well as enforcable on a global scale. Still, such a endevor is a steep hill to climb. Milton L Mueller wrote: > These responses are somewhat perfunctory, but no time for much > more.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >Lets go in two steps to reach right to development (a collective > >right) from the 'negative rights' you subscribe to, through the > > category of 'positive > > First, I don't believe in "collective rights" and it is not difficult > to prove logically that collective rights are incompatible with the > notion of equal rights. It takes you back to the pre-modern notion of > castes, estates, or classes, each with different privileges and > claims. And of course, these collective claims, being unique to each > group, must always clash against each other and lead to irreconcilable > social conflict. People are part of dozens and perhaps hundreds of > different groups and collectivities. All of them can organize to place > demands on the state. Those are not rights, that's just politics and > policy. What society needs to maintain justice are clear, common, > equal rights assigned to individuals. That preserves and protects > their ability to form and participate in collectivities as they > please, and prevents one group from dominating or abusing another. > > I think it was Cees Hamelinck who once said that you couldn't possibly > protect religious minorities without some notion of collective rights. > To me an obviously false assertion; we have protected religious and > cultural minorities for centuries by assuring individuals freedom of > association, freedom of expression and religion, all individual rights > unrelated to a collectivity. Historically the notion of collective > rights is as likely to be used to justify ethnic cleansing, social > dominance of one group over another and even genocide as it is to > protect minorities. Only way to avoid that is to appeal to a higher > level, liberal notion of the individual rights of the people within > the groups. > > >First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the > >UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying > imprisonment of > >parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. > > A right to education is at least meaningful, but it is obviously an > individual right. Or do you believe that one's right to education > varies with one's race, culture, etc? While that might be more > consistent with your collectivist bent, you can see where it would > lead and the risk of abuse it creates. Aside from that, as Tapani > pointed out these positive "rights" are contingent upon the ability > and willingness of other people to provide the necessary resources, > labor etc. "Moral assertions" as you put it, don't generate the > resources necessary to deliver the goods. So while I believe that > universal education is a Good Thing, and even that wealth > redistribution is often justified to achieve it, I would not put > education in the same category as the more basic "negative" rights. > Note also that such positive rights require the state to define what > is "education" and often (though not necessarily) to monopolize its > delivery and crush minority religions and cultures in the process. But > never mind that, you've made a moral assertion, so nothing immoral > could ever come of it, eh? > > >collective right - collective cultural rights - which all countries > (not > >only developing ones) other than the US have agreed to, most recently > in > > I think so-called collective cultural rights are about 80% cultural > and economic protectionism, and about 20% a legitimate attempt to > carve out a role for publicly funded culture, which I don't view as > being all that threatening, or threatened. > > > Right to > >development (among a few other things) is a moral assertion - seeking > > >insituional/legal applications - that default global institutional > systems > >(as use of FoE for cultural domination, in above case) that are > deemed > >neutral and good for all are often a form of (neo-imperialist?) > domination > >and that that developing countries have a right to challenge such > >domination. > > No offense, but that sentence is too ungrammatical to respond to. But > if I understand it, I would simply reply that you can challenge > political domination without asserting a fictitious RTD -- and did you > know that people have actually done it for centuries? > > > If you read the Right to development document you will find > >references to a 'new economic order' a couple of time. (a > non-hegemonisitc > >'new Internet order' may be similarly demanded.) > > I don't need to read that document, I've read all the NWICO documents > and am familiar with the "New Economic Order," The New World > Information Order," and the "New World Information and Communication > Order." and all the related aging 1970s-vintage ideology. > > "New Internet Order," eh? Wow, what an original idea! I hope you are > impressed with what, after 30-40 years, those "new economic orders" > produced. > > >The framework of RTD underpins efforts in global polity on > development > >agendas in WTO, WIPO, NWICO, and why not, claims of perhaps a 'new > Internet > >order'. > > In the WTO, as we discussed before, the assertion of RTD has no > connection to the legitimate attempt of developing countries to resist > American and European efforts to open markets they can compete in > (like IPR) and keep closed agriculture and immigration, where they > were not competitive. Nor do you need it to bargain for better terms > of trade. > > The WIPO development agenda has made accomplishments but I see no > connection whatsoever between a RTD and those accomplishments. One > does not have to assert a "right" to development to claim that royalty > collection for MNCs should not be the only priority for WIPO. In other > words, development is an objective, a goal of policy. When other > claims or goals conflict with development, it is perfectly legitimate > to assert development as a higher value. We can agree on that. No need > to misdefine it as a human right. Development as policy objective > involves a careful attempt to find policies that actually lead to > development. (And once you do that you might actually discover that > less state and more market is in needed in many situations. Horrors!) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 06:05:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:35:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] new MAG members Message-ID: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> The new MAG list is out http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED51 38FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. Valeria Betancourt Graciela Selaimen Y. J. Park Natasha Primo And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. Robin Gross Jeanette Hofmann Ken Lohento Qusai Al Shatti Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 22 07:06:24 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:06:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see Adam Peake rotated out, because of his great contribution and excellent liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations also to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who have also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there are some good inclusions. 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 _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 22 August 2008 20:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] new MAG members The new MAG list is out http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED51 38FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. Valeria Betancourt Graciela Selaimen Y. J. Park Natasha Primo And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. Robin Gross Jeanette Hofmann Ken Lohento Qusai Al Shatti Thanks Parminder Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 22 07:18:37 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:18:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> Ian Peter wrote: > Congratulations to all those selected – I am personally sad to see Adam > Peake rotated out, I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the stakeholder lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the MAG since the IGF's inception. jeanette because of his great contribution and excellent > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations also > to a number of other participants here as well – among them I see > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who have > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there are > some good inclusions. > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members > > > > The new MAG list is out > > > > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > > > The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > > > > > > Valeria Betancourt > > > > Graciela Selaimen > > > > Y. J. Park > > > > Natasha Primo > > > > > > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > > > > > > Robin Gross > > > > Jeanette Hofmann > > > > Ken Lohento > > > > Qusai Al Shatti > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 22 07:26:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:56:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080822112706.73CF4E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone knows his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's interests. I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our appreciation and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because as we all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the ordinary. I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the MAG. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see Adam > > Peake rotated out, > > I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the stakeholder > lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the MAG > since the IGF's inception. > jeanette > > because of his great contribution and excellent > > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees > > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations also > > to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see > > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who have > > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there are > > some good inclusions. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members > > > > > > > > The new MAG list is out > > > > > > > > > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED > 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > > > > > > > The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by > > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major > > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS > > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > > > > > > > > > > > > Valeria Betancourt > > > > > > > > Graciela Selaimen > > > > > > > > Y. J. Park > > > > > > > > Natasha Primo > > > > > > > > > > > > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin Gross > > > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann > > > > > > > > Ken Lohento > > > > > > > > Qusai Al Shatti > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Aug 22 07:46:52 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:46:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> I totally agree with Ian and Jeanette that Adam plays an outstanding role and regret he is no more in the MAG. Maybe overall gender balance (within the whole MAG) was also a criteria against him apart from regional balance (and maybe other considerations). CS members within the MAG need to manage to keep a good (and better) level of liaison with the IGC and the whole CS community. Thanks for your support and congrats to new members. KL Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > > Ian Peter wrote: >> Congratulations to all those selected – I am personally sad to see >> Adam Peake rotated out, > > I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the > stakeholder lines, and he has been one of the most active > participants in the MAG since the IGF's inception. > jeanette > > because of his great contribution and excellent >> liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees >> were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations >> also to a number of other participants here as well – among them I >> see Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who >> have also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments >> there are some good inclusions. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members >> >> >> >> The new MAG list is out >> >> >> >> http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument >> >> >> >> >> The following are new members from among the list of those nominated >> by IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a >> major consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also >> among CS members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. >> >> >> >> >> >> Valeria Betancourt >> >> >> >> Graciela Selaimen >> >> >> >> Y. J. Park >> >> >> >> Natasha Primo >> >> >> >> >> >> And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Robin Gross >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann >> >> >> >> Ken Lohento >> >> >> >> Qusai Al Shatti >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: >> 8/9/2008 1:22 PM >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Ken Lohento ICT Programme Coordinator Panos Institute West Africa www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.haayo.org Tel : +221 33 849 16 66 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 08:09:31 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:09:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080822112706.73CF4E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080822112706.73CF4E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) Congratulations to the new and continuing MAG members. I hope you have fun, it's a worthwhile thing to do. Best, Adam At 4:56 PM +0530 8/22/08, Parminder wrote: >I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone knows >his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's >interests. > >I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our appreciation >and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because as we >all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the ordinary. > >I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the MAG. > >Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members >> >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see Adam >> > Peake rotated out, >> >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the stakeholder >> lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the MAG >> since the IGF's inception. >> jeanette >> >> because of his great contribution and excellent >> > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees >> > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations also >> > to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see >> > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who have >> > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there are >> > some good inclusions. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 >> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members >> > >> > >> > >> > The new MAG list is out >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED >> 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument >> > >> > >> > >> > The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by >> > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major >> > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS >> > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Valeria Betancourt >> > >> > >> > >> > Graciela Selaimen >> > >> > >> > >> > Y. J. Park >> > >> > >> > >> > Natasha Primo >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Robin Gross >> > >> > >> > >> > Jeanette Hofmann >> > >> > >> > >> > Ken Lohento >> > >> > >> > >> > Qusai Al Shatti >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > >> > Parminder >> > >> > Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 >> > 1:22 PM >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 08:41:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:11:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Contributions to IGF synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080822124114.C7952A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. Sorry Adam, but the motion is already carried ;-). > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) Hi All As pointed out by Adam the deadline for getting our inputs into the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad is the 12th of September. This synthesis paper serves as a kind of conference paper for the meeting, and since thousands attend the IGF, it can be expected to get a good readership. All those who want to get their word/ views in may send contributions before the 12th. We will like to get a contribution form the IGC as well. Please see the synthesis paper for IGF Rio at http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF.SynthesisPaper.24.09.2007.rtf to get an idea of what kind of things go in. It is mostly a paper for substantive inputs on various themes for the IGF, about IGF generally, or more generally about IG. However, since it is likely to be organized by the theme of IGF, Hyderabad, contributions made directly on these topics have a greater likelihood to go in, and have greater prominence. There are specific sections on role and structure of the IGF. Contributions under this theme should also get good prominence. Ian and I conferred to suggest two themes for IGCs contribution 1) Rights and the Internet - as a substantive theme in IGFs, 2) Review of the IGF In addition, we may also give our inputs for how the IGF should be - WGs, regional IGFs, inter-sessional activity, more pro-active engagement with other policy bodies in this area, etc. Anything else IGC wants to say on access, CIRs, FoE, any emerging issues or whatever. Other ideas are welcome. Please also suggest how we should go about this. Should we discuss both the above topics in this group, or make working groups on each who can then suggest text for further amendment and adoption. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:40 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new MAG members > > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. > > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) > > Congratulations to the new and continuing MAG members. I hope you > have fun, it's a worthwhile thing to do. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > At 4:56 PM +0530 8/22/08, Parminder wrote: > >I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone > knows > >his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's > >interests. > > > >I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our > appreciation > >and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because as > we > >all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the > ordinary. > > > >I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the > MAG. > > > >Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter wrote: > >> > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see > Adam > >> > Peake rotated out, > >> > >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the > stakeholder > >> lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the MAG > >> since the IGF's inception. > >> jeanette > >> > >> because of his great contribution and excellent > >> > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees > >> > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations > also > >> > to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see > >> > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who > have > >> > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there > are > >> > some good inclusions. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > >> > > >> > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 > >> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The new MAG list is out > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED > >> 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The following are new members from among the list of those nominated > by > >> > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a > major > >> > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also > among CS > >> > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Valeria Betancourt > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Graciela Selaimen > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Y. J. Park > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Natasha Primo > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Robin Gross > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Jeanette Hofmann > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Ken Lohento > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Qusai Al Shatti > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Parminder > >> > > >> > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > >> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > 8/9/2008 > >> > 1:22 PM > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 09:10:16 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:10:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20080822131031.A3412113204@mail.gn.apc.org> hi i'm stunned actually.. and can't think of what the reasons would be.. even taking various factors into account.. but can only add my - and all of APC's collective thanks - and a simple thank you doesn't seem quite enough - for all of the extraordinary work adam has contributed to the IGF process through the MAG - and prior to.. so sorry adam, as i'm sure you were keen to continue.. and on the other hand, congratulations of course to jeanette, ken, qusai and robin - and the incoming members - valeria, natasha, graciela and YJ karen At 12:46 22/08/2008, Ken Lohento wrote: >I totally agree with Ian and Jeanette that Adam >plays an outstanding role and regret he is no >more in the MAG. Maybe overall gender balance >(within the whole MAG) was also a criteria >against him apart from regional balance (and maybe other considerations). > >CS members within the MAG need to manage to keep >a good (and better) level of liaison with the IGC and the whole CS community. > >Thanks for your support and congrats to new members. > >KL > >Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >> >>Ian Peter wrote: >>>Congratulations to all those selected ­ I am >>>personally sad to see Adam Peake rotated out, >> >>I couldn't agree more and the only explanation >>I can think of are regional artithmetics. Adam >>is highly appreciated across the stakeholder >>lines, and he has been one of the most active >>participants in the MAG since the IGF's inception. >>jeanette >> >>because of his great contribution and excellent >>>liaison with civil society. And I thought a >>>few more of our nominees were worthy of >>>selection, but were not chosen. But >>>congratulations also to a number of other >>>participants here as well ­ among them I see >>>Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, >>>Alejandro Pisanty, who have also been >>>included. Despite a few individual >>>disappointments there are some good inclusions. >>> >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>*From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>*Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 >>>*To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>*Subject:* [governance] new MAG members >>> >>> >>> >>>The new MAG list is out >>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>The following are new members from among the >>>list of those nominated by IGC. All are women. >>>It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a >>>major consideration. I see a considerable >>>geographic realignment also among CS members. >>>There is a good increase in the number CS members. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Valeria Betancourt >>> >>> >>> >>>Graciela Selaimen >>> >>> >>> >>>Y. J. Park >>> >>> >>> >>>Natasha Primo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Robin Gross >>> >>> >>> >>>Jeanette Hofmann >>> >>> >>> >>>Ken Lohento >>> >>> >>> >>>Qusai Al Shatti >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder >>> >>>Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: >>>270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > >-- >Ken Lohento >ICT Programme Coordinator >Panos Institute West Africa >www.panos-ao.org >www.cipaco.org >www.haayo.org >Tel : +221 33 849 16 66 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Aug 22 10:20:53 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:20:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called "intellectual property protection" Message-ID: The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. It's truly remarkable that such giants of of the information industry can make such unbelievable leaps into the future. I first thought that these were clever jokes. They are not. If you don't believe them, check them in: http://patft.uspto.gov/ http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089&RS=7,407,089 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 or just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AWARDED TO IBM! On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 for storing a preference for paper or plastic grocery bags on customer cards and displaying a picture of said preference after a card is scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, eliminates the 'unnecessary inconvenience for both the customer and the cashier' that results when 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The patent claims also cover affixing a cute sticker of a paper or plastic bag to a customer card to indicate packaging preferences. AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! United States Patent 7,415,666 Sellers , et al. August 19, 2008 Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based increments Abstract A method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed. In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any starting vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same location on the next or previous page. For example, if a user is viewing a page starting in a viewing area from the middle of that page and ending at the bottom, a Page Down command will cause the next page to be shown in the viewing area starting at the middle of the next page and ending at the bottom of the next page. Similar behavior occurs when there is more than one column of pages being displayed in a row. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: +1.202.370.7734 SKYPE: sadowsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 22 10:36:01 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:36:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E31B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Despite Adam's request I just want to make it clear that I think he was the most active, engaged and helpful MAG member for this caucus and I really appreciate his contribution. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see Adam > > Peake rotated out, > > I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the stakeholder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 10:40:16 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:40:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E31D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Just a note in response to Ken, while I reiterate my view that Adam was excellent as our MAG nominee, I support the principle of rotation and think that it's not bad at all for change to occur and different people to get involced. Furthermore, given what I know about these processes I suspect that another term could be considered a punishment rather than a reward. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > I totally agree with Ian and Jeanette that Adam plays an outstanding > role and regret he is no more in the MAG. Maybe overall gender balance > (within the whole MAG) was also a criteria against him apart from > regional balance (and maybe other considerations). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Fri Aug 22 10:41:24 2008 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:41:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E31B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E31B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7035DFD0-421D-4901-AA57-0C778D881F8E@datos-personales.org> I support Milton´s statement. Thank you so much for your hard work. Adam. Katitza On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Despite Adam's request I just want to make it clear that I think he > was > the most active, engaged and helpful MAG member for this caucus and I > really appreciate his contribution. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:19 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members >> >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >>> Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see > Adam >>> Peake rotated out, >> >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the > stakeholder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Fri Aug 22 12:20:57 2008 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:20:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: A word of thanks to all those who participated in the Nomcom process, and congratulations to those who made it (or got re-appointed) to the MAG robert On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Parminder wrote: > The new MAG list is out > > > > > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 22 12:32:11 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:32:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: References: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AEEA0B.2030509@rits.org.br> I am particularly happy that the three first members of the LA&C caucus list of candidates were chosen, but congrats to all! []s fraternos --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > A word of thanks to all those who participated in the Nomcom process, and > congratulations to those who made it (or got re-appointed) to the MAG > > robert > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> The new MAG list is out >> >> >> >> >> http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 22 16:42:31 2008 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:42:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080819110813.B7A9F6A0F5@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AF24B7.3070201@apc.org> Congratulations, Ian. All the best Willie Parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > > > I have the election results with me. I first of all thank Derrick > Cogburn on IGC's behalf for administering the election process for us, > so smoothly. I also thank David Goldstein and Ian Peter who responded > to the call to volunteer for co-coordinatorship. > > > > Ian Peter got more votes, and I request him to take up as the > co-coordinator of the IG Caucus, with immediate effect. > > > > Congrats Ian, and welcome. > > > > As Ian takes up the job, Vittorio Bertola ceases to be a > co-coordinator. I thank Vittorio on the behalf of the group for > outstanding work done in this capacity. We all highly appreciate his > skills and leadership in managing this group's various activities. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: One hundred members voted in the election. I will a file a report > on the election process with full results in a day or two. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 wcurrie at apc.org Fri Aug 22 16:48:31 2008 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:48:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080822112706.73CF4E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080822112706.73CF4E2D5B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AF261F.8090101@apc.org> I'm sorry to hear this too and hope that Adam's skill, finesse and considerable contribution to the IGF MAG and secretariat will not be lost. Congratulations to all the new members of the MAG and to those who have been re-appointed! Willie Parminder wrote: > I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone knows > his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's > interests. > > I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our appreciation > and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because as we > all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the ordinary. > > I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the MAG. > > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members >> >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see Adam >>> Peake rotated out, >>> >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the stakeholder >> lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the MAG >> since the IGF's inception. >> jeanette >> >> because of his great contribution and excellent >> >>> liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our nominees >>> were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations also >>> to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see >>> Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who have >>> also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there are >>> some good inclusions. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members >>> >>> >>> >>> The new MAG list is out >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED >> 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument >> >>> >>> The following are new members from among the list of those nominated by >>> IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a major >>> consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also among CS >>> members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Valeria Betancourt >>> >>> >>> >>> Graciela Selaimen >>> >>> >>> >>> Y. J. Park >>> >>> >>> >>> Natasha Primo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robin Gross >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann >>> >>> >>> >>> Ken Lohento >>> >>> >>> >>> Qusai Al Shatti >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 >>> 1:22 PM >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 21 20:57:30 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] new MAG members References: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AE0EF9.DA3EB083@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Thank you for the infomative link. Seems to me that the MAG has many of the same old "Players". As such I wonder if the precieved necessary changes needed can be achieved with such a paridign? Parminder wrote: > The new MAG list is out > > http://www.unog.ch/ > nog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > The following are new members from among the list of those nominated > by IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a > major consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also > among CS members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > > Valeria Betancourt > > Graciela Selaimen > > Y. J. Park > > Natasha Primo > > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > > Robin Gross > > Jeanette Hofmann > > Ken Lohento > > Qusai Al Shatti > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 21 21:22:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:22:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called References: Message-ID: <48AE14B8.A19B1BCD@ix.netcom.com> George and all, The patent system in the US has already recently been overhauled. I seriously doubt that a new overhaul effort will gain much support within the USG anytime soon, if in my lifetime. George Sadowsky wrote: > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. It's > truly remarkable that such giants of of the information industry can > make such unbelievable leaps into the future. I first thought that > these were clever jokes. They are not. If you don't believe them, > check them > in: http://patft.uspto.gov/ http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089&RS=7,407,089 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 or > just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. Then > take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent > system. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AWARDED > TO IBM! On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 for > storing a preference for paper or plastic grocery bags on customer > cards and displaying a picture of said preference after a card is > scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, eliminates the 'unnecessary > inconvenience for both the customer and the cashier' that results when > 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The patent claims also cover > affixing a cute sticker of a paper or plastic bag to a customer card > to indicate packaging preferences. AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! United > States Patent 7,415,666 > Sellers , et al.August 19, 2008 > Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based > increments > > AbstractA method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a > substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, > regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is > currently being viewed. In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or > Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any starting > vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same location on > the next or previous page. For example, if a user is viewing a page > starting in a viewing area from the middle of that page and ending at > the bottom, a Page Down command will cause the next page to be shown > in the viewing area starting at the middle of the next page and ending > at the bottom of the next page. Similar behavior occurs when there is > more than one column of pages being displayed in a row. > > -- > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~George > Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com2182 Birch Way > george.sadowsky at attglobal.netWoodstock, VT 05091-8155 > http://www.georgesadowsky.org/tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: > +1.202.415.1933Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: > +1.202.370.7734 SKYPE: sadowsky > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 22 23:38:39 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:08:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <48AE0EF9.DA3EB083@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20080823033914.C206CE2ED9@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is about the letter we planned to send to MAG chair and the IGF secretariat about our disappointment about the delay in announcing the new MAG, and consequent problems, especially for those who may not be institutionally supported, in making travel arrangements. The IGF secretariat took note of our initiative - probably from the IGC list itself - and informed me in confidence that they were cognizant of the problem, and that new MAG members (at that time, officially, likely members) were being already contacted. This means that new MAG members had begun to know about their appointment. I was also told that some kind of financial support may also be worked out, to be offered in some cases. Since the above met both of our main concerns that we sought to raise, I thought that the letter was un-necessary, especially since the IGF secretariat had pro-actively proffered information to the IGC co-coordinator, even if, at that moment, in confidence. I also conferred on this with Ian, and Adam, who originally proposed the letter. However, we still will like to make the point that MAG announcements should be made in better time, since it affects the whole schedule of IGF preparations. We now plan to do so as a part of IGC's statement we may read out at the September consultations. We need to propose such a statement and get it adopted by the caucus. This, unlike contributions to the synthesis paper, should be more to do with IGF Hyderabad program. We can repeat what we said in our written contribution, and to it add some elements. Pl give suggestions on what we would want to see included in this statement. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Guru at itforchange.net Sat Aug 23 01:48:58 2008 From: Guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:18:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] new MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080822100525.D0DBCE2D5F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AFA4CA.5070502@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 24 02:14:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:44:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called "intellectual property protection" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080824061548.1D38BA6D68@smtp2.electricembers.net> > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below.. Thanks George for this information. > Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. Indeed, for overhaul of the complete intellectual property 'right' system. This fits into the 'rights' debate we are having. In fact, after discussing education as a positive right and cultural rights and 'right to development' as collective rights, the next issue I wanted to engage Milton was on the basis and meaning of property rights. He seems to classify it as a basic and 'real' right. To quote him ". an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights." I don't think the way the notion of property today is 'legally and systemically constructed' can be seen from within the framework of negative rights. I mean a kind of 'this is my pile of stones I collected, and is in my space, and you stick to your pile in your space' kind of formulation. So that mere non-incursion assures achieving of 'rights' which is the definition of negative rights. Property rights are increasingly a framework of social and political distribution of resources, attuned to some extent (and some extent only) with individual's productive efforts, and need for incentive for productive work. IPRs look even lesser like negative rights. In fact the right of anyone to do whatever one wants with an idea one picks up - without anyone else loosing that idea - looks more of a negative right.. That would be some form of right to access knowledge. Strong institutional structures preventing people from using ideas, which are needed to safeguard IPR, looks quite a 'positive' act. It is not enough to assert (if one does) that CS doesn't give IPR the status of a right. IPR is becoming the basic organizing principle of new economic relationships/ order- and thereby social and political ones. Its claims are often taken to supersede many other social and political priorities/ rights - like the 'three strikes' rule for IPR violation - whereby there is a move to allow even private parties - ISPs - to unilaterally act in defense of such a 'right'. Even if such an action of safeguarding IPR is to the detriment of other rights that access to Internet enables (whereby a 'right to the Internet' itself may be valid). IPR definition and enforcement is becoming such an over-arching political priority that it can definitely be considered as a strong form of a 'right in practice'.. Fighting this needs assertion of right to access knowledge as a stronger right. And in terms of the digital environment, also an assertion of a 'right to the Internet'. CS cant remain blind to these powerful forces, and claims of 'rights' that underpin fundamental information society changes, and keep sticking to some essentialist notions of rights. Parminder _____ From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:51 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called "intellectual property protection" The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. It's truly remarkable that such giants of of the information industry can make such unbelievable leaps into the future. I first thought that these were clever jokes. They are not. If you don't believe them, check them in: http://patft.uspto.gov/ http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetah tml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089 &RS=7,407,089 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fn etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS =7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 or just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AWARDED TO IBM! On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 for storing a preference for paper or plastic grocery bags on customer cards and displaying a picture of said preference after a card is scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, eliminates the 'unnecessary inconvenience for both the customer and the cashier' that results when 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The patent claims also cover affixing a cute sticker of a paper or plastic bag to a customer card to indicate packaging preferences. AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! United States Patent 7,415,666 Sellers , et al. August 19, 2008 Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based increments Abstract A method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed. In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any starting vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same location on the next or previous page. For example, if a user is viewing a page starting in a viewing area from the middle of that page and ending at the bottom, a Page Down command will cause the next page to be shown in the viewing area starting at the middle of the next page and ending at the bottom of the next page. Similar behavior occurs when there is more than one column of pages being displayed in a row. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: +1.202.370.7734 SKYPE: sadowsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 23 07:24:45 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:24:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called References: <20080824061548.1D38BA6D68@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48AFF37D.9503478F@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, I believe one of the patents to which George kindly provided as examples, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 is certainly reasonably challangeble with some reasonable possibility of success. The larger point in respect to IPR, is one that is a far more debatable, and often legally challanged one vis a vi for example, RIAA and MPAA. MS also have been on a rampage to get as many patents filed and approved with as little notice as possible. The one in George'es example is an especially egregious one and seems to make some rather outlandish claims to a broad spectrum of technology. FWIW, I believe it begs to be challanged... MS has been beat before regarding other patents it has filed. It can be beat again. But we all should take some stock that each and every time such highly suspicious that are filed and later challanged is a very costly affair. In respect to some countries patent systems, calling for reform is often warrented, and in the case of the US, has been done, but may need to be done again. My wonder is where was the IGC two years agon regarding this issue? Parminder wrote: > > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below.. > > Thanks George for this information. > > > Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. > > Indeed, for overhaul of the complete intellectual property ‘right’ > system. > > This fits into the ‘rights’ debate we are having. In fact, after > discussing education as a positive right and cultural rights and > ‘right to development’ as collective rights, the next issue I wanted > to engage Milton was on the basis and meaning of property rights > > He seems to classify it as a basic and ‘real’ right. To quote him “ > an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights ” > > I don’t think the way the notion of property today is ‘legally and > systemically constructed’ can be seen from within the framework of > negative rights. I mean a kind of ‘this is my pile of stones I > collected, and is in my space, and you stick to your pile in your > space’ kind of formulation. So that mere non-incursion assures > achieving of ‘rights’ which is the definition of negative rights. > Property rights are increasingly a framework of social and political > distribution of resources, attuned to some extent (and some extent > only) with individual’s productive efforts, and need for incentive for > productive work. > > IPRs look even lesser like negative rights. In fact the right of > anyone to do whatever one wants with an idea one picks up – without > anyone else loosing that idea – looks more of a negative right.. That > would be some form of right to access knowledge. Strong institutional > structures preventing people from using ideas, which are needed to > safeguard IPR, looks quite a ‘positive’ act. > > It is not enough to assert (if one does) that CS doesn’t give IPR the > status of a right. IPR is becoming the basic organizing principle of > new economic relationships/ order– and thereby social and political > ones. Its claims are often taken to supersede many other social and > political priorities/ rights – like the ‘three strikes’ rule for IPR > violation – whereby there is a move to allow even private parties – > ISPs – to unilaterally act in defense of such a ‘right’. Even if such > an action of safeguarding IPR is to the detriment of other rights that > access to Internet enables (whereby a ‘right to the Internet’ itself > may be valid). > > IPR definition and enforcement is becoming such an over-arching > political priority that it can definitely be considered as a strong > form of a ‘right in practice’.. Fighting this needs assertion of > right to access knowledge as a stronger right. And in terms of the > digital environment, also an assertion of a ‘right to the Internet’. > > CS cant remain blind to these powerful forces, and claims of ‘rights’ > that underpin fundamental information society changes, and keep > sticking to some essentialist notions of rights. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:51 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called > "intellectual property protection" > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. > It's truly remarkable that such giants of of the information industry > can make such unbelievable leaps into the future. > I first thought that these were clever jokes. They are not. If you > don't believe them, check them in: > > http://patft.uspto.gov/ > > ttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089&RS=7,407,089 > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 > or just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. > Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. > George > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > AWARDED TO IBM! > On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 > for storing a preference for paper or plastic grocery bags on customer > cards and displaying a picture of said preference after a card is > scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, eliminates the 'unnecessary > inconvenience for both the customer and the cashier' that results when > 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The patent claims also cover > affixing a cute sticker of a paper or plastic bag to a customer card > to indicate packaging preferences. > AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! > United States Patent 7,415,666 > > Sellers , et al.August 19, 2008 > Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based > increments > > Abstract > A method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially > exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether > the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed. > In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up keyboard > key/button allows a user to begin at any starting vertical location > within a page, and navigate to that same location on the next or > previous page. For example, if a user is viewing a page starting in a > viewing area from the middle of that page and ending at the bottom, a > Page Down command will cause the next page to be shown in the viewing > area starting at the middle of the next page and ending at the bottom > of the next page. Similar behavior occurs when there is more than one > column of pages being displayed in a row. > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com > 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 > Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: > +1.202.370.7734 > SKYPE: sadowsky > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Aug 24 12:05:40 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:05:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called In-Reply-To: <20080824061548.1D38BA6D68@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080824061548.1D38BA6D68@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Perhaps it is useful to see IPR in the focus of a 'rights' argument, but I think of it more with respect to development. It's possible that no one is going to care that Microsoft has patented PgUp/PgDn, an I can't see Microsoft demanding royalties on every keyboard with those keys and from every software program that has such functionality, but such patents, an their corresponding copyrights, erode the amount of knowledge an the degrees of freedom available for education and development. It's not any one such action that is serious, but the culture that encourages the privatization, and the subsequent monetization, of intellectual property that is corrosive and counterproductive in terms of the public interest. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:44 AM +0530 8/24/08, Parminder wrote: > > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below.. > > >Thanks George for this information. > > > Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. > >Indeed, for overhaul of the complete intellectual property 'right' system. > >This fits into the 'rights' debate we are >having. In fact, after discussing education as a >positive right and cultural rights and 'right to >development' as collective rights, the next >issue I wanted to engage Milton was on the basis >and meaning of property rightsŠ > >He seems to classify it as a basic and 'real' >right. To quote him "Š an extension of other >basic rights, such as property rightsŠ" > >I don't think the way the notion of property >today is 'legally and systemically constructed' >can be seen from within the framework of >negative rights. I mean a kind of 'this is my >pile of stones I collected, and is in my space, >and you stick to your pile in your space' kind >of formulation. So that mere non-incursion >assures achieving of 'rights' which is the >definition of negative rights. Property rights >are increasingly a framework of social and >political distribution of resources, attuned to >some extent (and some extent only) with >individual's productive efforts, and need for >incentive for productive work. > >IPRs look even lesser like negative rights. In >fact the right of anyone to do whatever one >wants with an idea one picks up - without anyone >else loosing that idea - looks more of a >negative right.. That would be some form of >right to access knowledge. Strong institutional >structures preventing people from using ideas, >which are needed to safeguard IPR, looks quite a >'positive' act. > >It is not enough to assert (if one does) that CS >doesn't give IPR the status of a right. IPR is >becoming the basic organizing principle of new >economic relationships/ order- and thereby >social and political ones. Its claims are often >taken to supersede many other social and >political priorities/ rights - like the 'three >strikes' rule for IPR violation - whereby there >is a move to allow even private parties - ISPs - >to unilaterally act in defense of such a >'right'. Even if such an action of safeguarding >IPR is to the detriment of other rights that >access to Internet enables (whereby a 'right to >the Internet' itself may be valid). > >IPR definition and enforcement is becoming such >an over-arching political priority that it can >definitely be considered as a strong form of a >'right in practice'.. Fighting this needs >assertion of right to access knowledge as a >stronger right. And in terms of the digital >environment, also an assertion of a 'right to >the Internet'. > >CS cant remain blind to these powerful forces, >and claims of 'rights' that underpin fundamental >information society changes, and keep sticking >to some essentialist notions of rights. > >Parminder > > >From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:51 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of >so-called "intellectual property protection" > >The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. > >It's truly remarkable that such giants of of the >information industry can make such unbelievable >leaps into the future. > >I first thought that these were clever jokes. >They are not. If you don't believe them, check >them in: > > >http://patft.uspto.gov/ > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089&RS=7,407,089 > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 > >or just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. > >Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. > >George > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >AWARDED TO IBM! > >On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 > > for storing a preference for paper or plastic >grocery bags on customer cards and displaying a >picture of said preference after a card is >scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, >eliminates the 'unnecessary inconvenience for >both the customer and the cashier' that results >when 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The >patent claims also cover affixing a cute sticker >of a paper or plastic bag to a customer card to >indicate packaging preferences. > > > > > >AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! > >United States Patent 7,415,666 >Sellers , et al. August 19, 2008 >Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based increments > >Abstract >A method and system in a document viewer for >scrolling a substantially exact increment in a >document, such as one page, regardless of >whether the zoom is such that some, all or one >page is currently being viewed. In one >implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up >keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at >any starting vertical location within a page, >and navigate to that same location on the next >or previous page. For example, if a user is >viewing a page starting in a viewing area from >the middle of that page and ending at the >bottom, a Page Down command will cause the next >page to be shown in the viewing area starting at >the middle of the next page and ending at the >bottom of the next page. Similar behavior occurs >when there is more than one column of pages >being displayed in a row. > > >-- > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com >2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net >Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 >Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand >Central: +1.202.370.7734 >SKYPE: sadowsky > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Sun Aug 24 12:41:54 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:41:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research In-Reply-To: <48AD2847.DB38002A@ix.netcom.com> References: <200808210456.m7L4uBUo023354@mx4.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841C1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48AD2847.DB38002A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey, As I already asked you personally, but without success: PLEASE STOM SPAMMING. Again, six emails from you on the list on August 20th, and all on the same subject "Rights in IG research". As I told you, if all the members were as prolific as you are, we should receive more than 1,000 emails a day for this sole list.... Your production is quite higher than that of the coordinator! Please thanks for refraining... Thanks -- ************************************************ Prof. Jacques BERLEUR, Prof. Emer. Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix Rue de Bruxelles, 61 5000 NAMUR BELGIUM mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/ ************************************************ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 24 18:40:10 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:40:10 +1000 Subject: [governance] Chair of NomCom for Appeals Team Message-ID: Given the great number of comments in favour of David Goldstein taking on the task of independent non-voting chair of the NomCom for the Appeals Team, and no advice to the contrary from this list, the co-ordinators can now announce that David will be appointed for this task - and thank him for volunteering to do so! In a separate email I will begin the call for volunteers for the NomCom pool. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 24 19:02:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:02:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Message-ID: Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms. Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway. Thanks, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 23 21:32:26 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:32:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called References: <20080824061548.1D38BA6D68@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48B0BA2A.CA66904F@ix.netcom.com> George and all, In theory, I could not agree more. In practice what you suggest is far more difficult on a global or even national scale. George Sadowsky wrote: > Perhaps it is useful to see IPR in the focus of a 'rights' argument, > but I think of it more with respect to development. It's possible that > no one is going to care that Microsoft has patented PgUp/PgDn, an I > can't see Microsoft demanding royalties on every keyboard with those > keys and from every software program that has such functionality, but > such patents, an their corresponding copyrights, erode the amount of > knowledge an the degrees of freedom available for education and > development. It's not any one such action that is serious, but the > culture that encourages the privatization, and the subsequent > monetization, of intellectual property that is corrosive and > counterproductive in terms of the public > interest. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At > 11:44 AM +0530 8/24/08, Parminder wrote: > >> > The two patents APPROVED this month are described below.. > >> > >> > >> Thanks George for this information. > >> > >> > Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent >> system. > >> > >> Indeed, for overhaul of the complete intellectual property 'right' >> system. > >> > >> This fits into the 'rights' debate we are having. In fact, after >> discussing education as a positive right and cultural rights and >> 'right to development' as collective rights, the next issue I wanted >> to engage Milton was on the basis and meaning of property rightsŠ > >> > >> He seems to classify it as a basic and 'real' right. To quote him "Š >> an extension of other basic rights, such as property rightsŠ" > >> > >> I don't think the way the notion of property today is 'legally and >> systemically constructed' can be seen from within the framework of >> negative rights. I mean a kind of 'this is my pile of stones I >> collected, and is in my space, and you stick to your pile in your >> space' kind of formulation. So that mere non-incursion assures >> achieving of 'rights' which is the definition of negative rights. >> Property rights are increasingly a framework of social and political >> distribution of resources, attuned to some extent (and some extent >> only) with individual's productive efforts, and need for incentive >> for productive work. > >> > >> IPRs look even lesser like negative rights. In fact the right of >> anyone to do whatever one wants with an idea one picks up - without >> anyone else loosing that idea - looks more of a negative right.. >> That would be some form of right to access knowledge. Strong >> institutional structures preventing people from using ideas, which >> are needed to safeguard IPR, looks quite a 'positive' act. > >> > >> It is not enough to assert (if one does) that CS doesn't give IPR >> the status of a right. IPR is becoming the basic organizing >> principle of new economic relationships/ order- and thereby social >> and political ones. Its claims are often taken to supersede many >> other social and political priorities/ rights - like the 'three >> strikes' rule for IPR violation - whereby there is a move to allow >> even private parties - ISPs - to unilaterally act in defense of such >> a 'right'. Even if such an action of safeguarding IPR is to the >> detriment of other rights that access to Internet enables (whereby a >> 'right to the Internet' itself may be valid). > >> > >> IPR definition and enforcement is becoming such an over-arching >> political priority that it can definitely be considered as a strong >> form of a 'right in practice'.. Fighting this needs assertion of >> right to access knowledge as a stronger right. And in terms of the >> digital environment, also an assertion of a 'right to the Internet'. > >> > >> CS cant remain blind to these powerful forces, and claims of >> 'rights' that underpin fundamental information society changes, and >> keep sticking to some essentialist notions of rights. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:51 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called >> "intellectual property protection" > >> > >> The two patents APPROVED this month are described below below. > >> > >> It's truly remarkable that such giants of of the information >> industry can make such unbelievable leaps into the future. > >> > >> I first thought that these were clever jokes. They are not. If you >> don't believe them, check them in: > >> > >> http://patft.uspto.gov/ > >> > >> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,407,089&OS=7,407,089&RS=7,407,089 > >> > >> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,415,666&OS=7,415,666&RS=7,415,666 > >> > >> or just Google the patent numbers for some interesting commentary. > >> > >> Then take action to demand a complete overhaul of the patent system. > >> > >> George > >> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> > >> AWARDED TO IBM! > >> > >> On Tuesday, IBM was granted US Patent No. 7,407,089 > >> > >> for storing a preference for paper or plastic grocery bags on >> customer cards and displaying a picture of said preference after a >> card is scanned. The invention, Big Blue explains, eliminates the >> 'unnecessary inconvenience for both the customer and the cashier' >> that results when 'Paper or Plastic?' must be asked. The patent >> claims also cover affixing a cute sticker of a paper or plastic bag >> to a customer card to indicate packaging preferences. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> AWARDED TO MICROSOFT! > >> > >> United States Patent 7,415,666 >> Sellers , et al.August 19, 2008 >> Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based >> increments >> >> Abstract > >> A method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a >> substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, >> regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is >> currently being viewed. In one implementation, pressing a Page Down >> or Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any >> starting vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same >> location on the next or previous page. For example, if a user is >> viewing a page starting in a viewing area from the middle of that >> page and ending at the bottom, a Page Down command will cause the >> next page to be shown in the viewing area starting at the middle of >> the next page and ending at the bottom of the next page. Similar >> behavior occurs when there is more than one column of pages being >> displayed in a row. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com > >> 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > >> Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > >> tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 > >> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: >> +1.202.370.7734 > >> SKYPE: sadowsky > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 23 21:36:25 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:36:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <200808210456.m7L4uBUo023354@mx4.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841C1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48AD2847.DB38002A@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48B0BB19.FBA2F06F@ix.netcom.com> Jacques and all, I do not SPAM ever! I have responded in accordance with what is being posted. That is not under the law, UCE/spam. You know this Jacque. Certainly I may have a different or corresponding opinion, and as such, to deny me the right under the IGC principals as you seem to be suggesting, is improper. However that said, I shall restrain my number of posts as much as reasonably possible. Jacques Berleur wrote: > Jeffrey, > As I already asked you personally, but without success: PLEASE STOM > SPAMMING. Again, six emails from you on the list on August 20th, and > all on the same subject "Rights in IG research". > As I told you, if all the members were as prolific as you are, we > should receive more than 1,000 emails a day for this sole list.... > Your production is quite higher than that of the coordinator! > Please thanks for refraining... > Thanks > > -- > > ************************************************ > Prof. Jacques BERLEUR, Prof. Emer. > Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix > Rue de Bruxelles, 61 > 5000 NAMUR > BELGIUM > mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be > URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/ > ************************************************ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 24 20:23:17 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:23:17 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5EC547B1486A43F78F7E38E326FE8C50@IAN> Thanks to those who have already volunteered - A quick note - it's been pointed out to me that current appeals team members can not be on the nomcom (reason being that the current appeals team would have to rule on any appeal against this nomcom's work). This means that the current Appeals team - Rishi Chalwa, Willie Currie, Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern - cannot be included in he volunteer pool, along with the co-ordinators. For everyone else, I hope you find your way clear to volunteer! Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms. Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway. Thanks, 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 25 03:20:32 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:20:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Rights in IG research References: <200808210456.m7L4uBUo023354@mx4.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841C1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48AD2847.DB38002A@ix.netcom.com> <48B0BB19.FBA2F06F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426194@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeff: However that said, I shall restrain my number of posts as much as reasonably possible. Wolfgang: Thank you very 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 Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Mon Aug 25 09:22:01 2008 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:22:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] IFLA and APC In-Reply-To: <20080822131031.A3412113204@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> <20080822131031.A3412113204@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7D9@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Dear Karen Hello from IFLA HQ. Further to our brief chat about IFLA and APC in Geneva, I was wondering if you might be available for a further talk next week in London. I am over on business for a few days and would be very interested to hear a little more about APC's activities. In return I'd be happy to share a bit more information about what IFLA is and does. I realize it's short notice, but I am available any time on Friday - would you be free? Kind regards, Stuart PS: Did you receive the copy of our World Report? Dr. Stuart Hamilton Senior Policy Advisor International Federation of Library Associations P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 25 09:23:44 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:23:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IFLA and APC In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7D9@mfp01.IFLA.lan> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> <20080822131031.A3412113204@mail.gn.apc.org> <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7D9@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <20080825132350.613E311B6E6@mail.gn.apc.org> hi stuart, i'll respond offlist ;) karen At 14:22 25/08/2008, Stuart Hamilton wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C906B5.8F3CE630" > >Dear Karen > >Hello from IFLA HQ. Further to our brief chat >about IFLA and APC in Geneva, I was wondering if >you might be available for a further talk next >week in London. I am over on business for a few >days and would be very interested to hear a >little more about APC’s activities. In return >I’d be happy to share a bit more information >about what IFLA is and does. I realize it’s >short notice, but I am available any time on Friday – would you be free? > >Kind regards, > >Stuart > >PS: Did you receive the copy of our World Report? > > >Dr. Stuart Hamilton >Senior Policy Advisor >International Federation of Library Associations >P.O. Box 95312 >2509 CH The Hague >Netherlands > >00 31 70 314 0884 > > >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: -------------- 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 Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Mon Aug 25 09:24:57 2008 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:24:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: IFLA and APC In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7D9@mfp01.IFLA.lan> References: <48AEA08D.9070001@wzb.eu> <48AEA72C.3040909@panos-ao.org> <20080822131031.A3412113204@mail.gn.apc.org> <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7D9@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3722B7DA@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Apologies to governance list members - that was quite obviously supposed to be off-list... Stuart From: Stuart Hamilton Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:22 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'karen banks' Subject: IFLA and APC Dear Karen Hello from IFLA HQ. Further to our brief chat about IFLA and APC in Geneva, I was wondering if you might be available for a further talk next week in London. I am over on business for a few days and would be very interested to hear a little more about APC's activities. In return I'd be happy to share a bit more information about what IFLA is and does. I realize it's short notice, but I am available any time on Friday - would you be free? Kind regards, Stuart PS: Did you receive the copy of our World Report? Dr. Stuart Hamilton Senior Policy Advisor International Federation of Library Associations P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 25 16:21:14 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:21:14 +1000 Subject: [governance] Contributions to IGF synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080822124114.C7952A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <3AFB5A3B44824FC6B596B702E757C10E@IAN> Just a couple of points on this and suggestions to add to the paper which Parminder is preparing. REVIEW OF IGF. In addition to our general statement can we add here that civil society believes that some sort of ongoing forum or structure should be in place to continue when the 5 year term of IGF expires, and the review should specifically examine and recommend what sort of ongoing structure might be appropriate? PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Can we suggest that, in order to enhance participation, comments and questions be invited on line in advance from stakeholders, including the many who wont be able to attend Hyderabad meeting, on the main session themes and what they would like to see covered? This could be used to inform and construct the debates, and also the speakers and main session content. AVOIDING THE HARD QUESTIONS Can we mention that civil society belives that IGF cannot and should not avoid discussion on some of the hard issues of Internet governance. Although IGF is not a policy making body, can we say we believe that contentious issues should not be avoided, and that the IGF offers a unique forum for discussion among stakeholders with differing viewpoints on contentious matters. While agreement may not be possible, discussion of contentious issues can only lead to greater understanding and possibilities for enhanced co-operation. Just a few thoughts to add to those already advanced. Ian Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 22 August 2008 22:41 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' > Subject: [governance] Contributions to IGF synthesis paper > > > > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. > > Sorry Adam, but the motion is already carried ;-). > > > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) > > Hi All > > As pointed out by Adam the deadline for getting our inputs into the > synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad is the 12th of September. This synthesis > paper serves as a kind of conference paper for the meeting, and since > thousands attend the IGF, it can be expected to get a good readership. > > All those who want to get their word/ views in may send contributions > before > the 12th. > > We will like to get a contribution form the IGC as well. Please see the > synthesis paper for IGF Rio at > http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF.SynthesisPaper.24.09.2007.rtf > to > get an idea of what kind of things go in. > > It is mostly a paper for substantive inputs on various themes for the IGF, > about IGF generally, or more generally about IG. However, since it is > likely to be organized by the theme of IGF, Hyderabad, contributions made > directly on these topics have a greater likelihood to go in, and have > greater prominence. > > There are specific sections on role and structure of the IGF. > Contributions > under this theme should also get good prominence. > > Ian and I conferred to suggest two themes for IGCs contribution > > 1) Rights and the Internet - as a substantive theme in IGFs, > > 2) Review of the IGF > > In addition, we may also give our inputs for how the IGF should be - WGs, > regional IGFs, inter-sessional activity, more pro-active engagement with > other policy bodies in this area, etc. > > Anything else IGC wants to say on access, CIRs, FoE, any emerging issues > or > whatever. > > > Other ideas are welcome. Please also suggest how we should go about this. > Should we discuss both the above topics in this group, or make working > groups on each who can then suggest text for further amendment and > adoption. > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:40 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] new MAG members > > > > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. > > > > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) > > > > Congratulations to the new and continuing MAG members. I hope you > > have fun, it's a worthwhile thing to do. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 4:56 PM +0530 8/22/08, Parminder wrote: > > >I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone > > knows > > >his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's > > >interests. > > > > > >I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our > > appreciation > > >and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because > as > > we > > >all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the > > ordinary. > > > > > >I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the > > MAG. > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Ian Peter wrote: > > >> > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see > > Adam > > >> > Peake rotated out, > > >> > > >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > > >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the > > stakeholder > > >> lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the > MAG > > >> since the IGF's inception. > > >> jeanette > > >> > > >> because of his great contribution and excellent > > >> > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our > nominees > > >> > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations > > also > > >> > to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see > > >> > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who > > have > > >> > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there > > are > > >> > some good inclusions. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > > ---- > > >> > > > >> > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > >> > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 > > >> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > The new MAG list is out > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED > > >> 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > The following are new members from among the list of those > nominated > > by > > >> > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a > > major > > >> > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also > > among CS > > >> > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Valeria Betancourt > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Graciela Selaimen > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Y. J. Park > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Natasha Primo > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Robin Gross > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Jeanette Hofmann > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Ken Lohento > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Qusai Al Shatti > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Parminder > > >> > > > >> > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > >> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > >> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > > 8/9/2008 > > >> > 1:22 PM > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 25 20:15:41 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:15:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, we are nowhere near the 25 volunteers we need to get this process underway. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work to do at all - for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me personally. Thanks Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms. Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway. Thanks, 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Mon Aug 25 21:26:01 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:26:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I volunteer. Adam >Folks, we are nowhere near the 25 volunteers we >need to get this process underway. For most >people who put their name forward, there will be >no work to do at all ­ for the five who are >chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I would >imagine little more than an hour of your time >spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. > >Please help make up the numbers. Either send an >email to the list or to me personally. > >Thanks > >Ian Peter > > >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team > >Call for Volunteers ­ Nomcom for Appeals Team. > >This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom >for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get >this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. >Either send your name to this list or to me by >personal email. > >The process is described in full at >http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. >But briefly, > >We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team >as their current term has expired. The >appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by >a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly >chosen members of the volunteer pool for this >task > >To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a >minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool >will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to >serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, >working with David Goldstein as independent non >voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to >stand for Appeals Team this time round ­ other >volunteers not chosen are able to stand. > >As far as I can see the only members excluded >from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members >of the previous appeals team, as they are >ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer >for the NomCom. So are members of previous >nomcoms. > >Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please >consider volunteering by submitting your name >now by return email. We cannot proceed with this >overdue appeals team replacement until we have >25 volunteers. Your participation here will help >us to get this task underway. > > >Thanks, > > >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 > > >Internal Virus Database is out of date. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 >- Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 25 00:16:14 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:16:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Contributions to IGF synthesis paper References: <3AFB5A3B44824FC6B596B702E757C10E@IAN> Message-ID: <48B2320E.A4CBDE83@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Nicely outlined. I am particularly glad to see the section regarding "AVOIDING THE HARD QUESTIONS". These questions, some of which I have already posed, and hope will be again posed by others, are paramount. Well done! Ian Peter wrote: > Just a couple of points on this and suggestions to add to the paper which > Parminder is preparing. > > REVIEW OF IGF. In addition to our general statement can we add here that > civil society believes that some sort of ongoing forum or structure should > be in place to continue when the 5 year term of IGF expires, and the review > should specifically examine and recommend what sort of ongoing structure > might be appropriate? > > PUBLIC PARTICIPATION > Can we suggest that, in order to enhance participation, comments and > questions be invited on line in advance from stakeholders, including the > many who wont be able to attend Hyderabad meeting, on the main session > themes and what they would like to see covered? This could be used to inform > and construct the debates, and also the speakers and main session content. > > AVOIDING THE HARD QUESTIONS > Can we mention that civil society belives that IGF cannot and should not > avoid discussion on some of the hard issues of Internet governance. Although > IGF is not a policy making body, can we say we believe that contentious > issues should not be avoided, and that the IGF offers a unique forum for > discussion among stakeholders with differing viewpoints on contentious > matters. While agreement may not be possible, discussion of contentious > issues can only lead to greater understanding and possibilities for enhanced > co-operation. > > Just a few thoughts to add to those already advanced. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: 22 August 2008 22:41 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' > > Subject: [governance] Contributions to IGF synthesis paper > > > > > > > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. > > > > Sorry Adam, but the motion is already carried ;-). > > > > > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) > > > > Hi All > > > > As pointed out by Adam the deadline for getting our inputs into the > > synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad is the 12th of September. This synthesis > > paper serves as a kind of conference paper for the meeting, and since > > thousands attend the IGF, it can be expected to get a good readership. > > > > All those who want to get their word/ views in may send contributions > > before > > the 12th. > > > > We will like to get a contribution form the IGC as well. Please see the > > synthesis paper for IGF Rio at > > http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF.SynthesisPaper.24.09.2007.rtf > > to > > get an idea of what kind of things go in. > > > > It is mostly a paper for substantive inputs on various themes for the IGF, > > about IGF generally, or more generally about IG. However, since it is > > likely to be organized by the theme of IGF, Hyderabad, contributions made > > directly on these topics have a greater likelihood to go in, and have > > greater prominence. > > > > There are specific sections on role and structure of the IGF. > > Contributions > > under this theme should also get good prominence. > > > > Ian and I conferred to suggest two themes for IGCs contribution > > > > 1) Rights and the Internet - as a substantive theme in IGFs, > > > > 2) Review of the IGF > > > > In addition, we may also give our inputs for how the IGF should be - WGs, > > regional IGFs, inter-sessional activity, more pro-active engagement with > > other policy bodies in this area, etc. > > > > Anything else IGC wants to say on access, CIRs, FoE, any emerging issues > > or > > whatever. > > > > > > Other ideas are welcome. Please also suggest how we should go about this. > > Should we discuss both the above topics in this group, or make working > > groups on each who can then suggest text for further amendment and > > adoption. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:40 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] new MAG members > > > > > > Thanks, but please no motions of thanks. > > > > > > Just get a paper in for the September 12 deadline :-) > > > > > > Congratulations to the new and continuing MAG members. I hope you > > > have fun, it's a worthwhile thing to do. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > At 4:56 PM +0530 8/22/08, Parminder wrote: > > > >I shared my feeling about Adam's rotation offline with him. Everyone > > > knows > > > >his stellar contribution to the MAG, especially with respect to CS's > > > >interests. > > > > > > > >I think we should adopt a formal motion putting on record our > > > appreciation > > > >and gratitude for his exemplary stint at the MAG. I propose so because > > as > > > we > > > >all know his work and contribution has really been way out of the > > > ordinary. > > > > > > > >I also take the opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the > > > MAG. > > > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > > >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:49 PM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] new MAG members > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> > Congratulations to all those selected - I am personally sad to see > > > Adam > > > >> > Peake rotated out, > > > >> > > > >> I couldn't agree more and the only explanation I can think of are > > > >> regional artithmetics. Adam is highly appreciated across the > > > stakeholder > > > >> lines, and he has been one of the most active participants in the > > MAG > > > >> since the IGF's inception. > > > >> jeanette > > > >> > > > >> because of his great contribution and excellent > > > >> > liaison with civil society. And I thought a few more of our > > nominees > > > >> > were worthy of selection, but were not chosen. But congratulations > > > also > > > >> > to a number of other participants here as well - among them I see > > > >> > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Raul Echeberria, Alejandro Pisanty, who > > > have > > > >> > also been included. Despite a few individual disappointments there > > > are > > > >> > some good inclusions. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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 > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > > ---- > > > >> > > > > >> > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > >> > *Sent:* 22 August 2008 20:05 > > > >> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > *Subject:* [governance] new MAG members > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > The new MAG list is out > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED > > > >> 5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > The following are new members from among the list of those > > nominated > > > by > > > >> > IGC. All are women. It looks like gender balance was, admirably, a > > > major > > > >> > consideration. I see a considerable geographic realignment also > > > among CS > > > >> > members. There is a good increase in the number CS members. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Valeria Betancourt > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Graciela Selaimen > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Y. J. Park > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Natasha Primo > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > And a few of IGC members whose membership has been renewed. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Robin Gross > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Jeanette Hofmann > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Ken Lohento > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Qusai Al Shatti > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Parminder > > > >> > > > > >> > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > >> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > > >> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > > > 8/9/2008 > > > >> > 1:22 PM > > > >> > > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 26 03:20:31 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:20:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Ian, I¹ll volunteer. I¹m traveling and very far behind on mail, but while here will just say that I of course second the various thank yous to Adam for his excellent service on the MAG and congrats to the new appointees. Cheers, Bill On 8/25/08 1:02 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Call for Volunteers ­ Nomcom for Appeals Team. > > This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new > Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send > your name to this list or to me by personal email. > > The process is described in full at > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, > > We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has > expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating > Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for > this task > > To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people > from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the > NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent > non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this > time round ­ other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. > > As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the > Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to > stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous > nomcoms. > > Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting > your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals > team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will > help us to get this task underway. > > > Thanks, > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Center for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Aug 26 04:02:40 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:02:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <48B3D4C0.30132.1CBB2740@anriette.apc.org> I volunteer if you still need people, Ian. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 04:51:46 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:21:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <48B3D4C0.30132.1CBB2740@anriette.apc.org> References: <48B3D4C0.30132.1CBB2740@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: Hello Ian, I volunteer Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I volunteer if you still need people, Ian. > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 26 05:41:39 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:41:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3CFD3.40107@wzb.eu> I volunteer as well. jeanette Adam Peake wrote: > I volunteer. > > Adam > > > >> Folks, we are nowhere near the 25 volunteers we need to get this >> process underway. For most people who put their name forward, there >> will be no work to do at all ­ for the five who are chosen to >> eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour >> of your time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. >> >> Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or >> to me personally. >> >> Thanks >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team >> >> Call for Volunteers ­ Nomcom for Appeals Team. >> >> This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a >> new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. >> Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. >> >> The process is described in full at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. >> But briefly, >> >> We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term >> has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a >> Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the >> volunteer pool for this task >> >> To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 >> people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to >> serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David >> Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be >> able to stand for Appeals Team this time round ­ other volunteers not >> chosen are able to stand. >> >> As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are >> the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are >> ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So >> are members of previous nomcoms. >> >> Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by >> submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this >> overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your >> participation here will help us to get this task underway. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: >> 8/9/2008 1:22 PM >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 26 08:47:17 2008 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:47:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <48B3CFD3.40107@wzb.eu> References: <48B3CFD3.40107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi all, I volunteer as well, if still needed. On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I volunteer as well. > jeanette > > Adam Peake wrote: >> >> I volunteer. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Folks, we are nowhere near the 25 volunteers we need to get this process >>> underway. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work >>> to do at all ­ for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I >>> would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of >>> weeks will be necessary. >>> >>> Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to >>> me personally. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team >>> >>> Call for Volunteers ­ Nomcom for Appeals Team. >>> >>> This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new >>> Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either >>> send your name to this list or to me by personal email. >>> >>> The process is described in full at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. >>> But briefly, >>> >>> We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has >>> expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating >>> Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for >>> this task >>> >>> To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 >>> people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve >>> as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as >>> independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for >>> Appeals Team this time round ­ other volunteers not chosen are able to >>> stand. >>> >>> As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the >>> Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible >>> to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of >>> previous nomcoms. >>> >>> Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by >>> submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this >>> overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your >>> participation here will help us to get this task underway. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 >>> 1:22 PM >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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........ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Tue Aug 26 09:09:57 2008 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:09:57 +0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <48B3CFD3.40107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <1E2F113811EB41089D1E47CC407BC651@DirectorIT> Dear All, If the number is not reached, I would like to volunteer as well Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Babatope Soremi Sent: 26 August 2008 16:47 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Hi all, I volunteer as well, if still needed. On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I volunteer as well. > jeanette > > Adam Peake wrote: >> >> I volunteer. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Folks, we are nowhere near the 25 volunteers we need to get this process >>> underway. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work >>> to do at all - for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I >>> would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of >>> weeks will be necessary. >>> >>> Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to >>> me personally. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team >>> >>> Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. >>> >>> This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new >>> Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either >>> send your name to this list or to me by personal email. >>> >>> The process is described in full at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-p rocess.htm. >>> But briefly, >>> >>> We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has >>> expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating >>> Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for >>> this task >>> >>> To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 >>> people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve >>> as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as >>> independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for >>> Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to >>> stand. >>> >>> As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the >>> Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible >>> to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of >>> previous nomcoms. >>> >>> Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by >>> submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this >>> overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your >>> participation here will help us to get this task underway. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 >>> 1:22 PM >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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........ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 26 19:25:19 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:25:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more needed! So if you haven't done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool now so we can move on to the next step!. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work to do at all - for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me personally. Thanks Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms. Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway. Thanks, 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 26 20:06:10 2008 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Volunteering for :- Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <427472.40190.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Ian  I volunteer for the Nom Com Apeals Team . I do have some background and am happy to provide something if required. best Regards Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms ....      --- On Tue, 8/26/08, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team To: "'Ian Peter'" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 4:25 PM Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more needed!   So if you haven’t done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool now so we can move on to the next step!. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work to do at all – for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary.   Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me personally.     Thanks   Ian Peter   From: Ian Peter [mailto: ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team   Call for Volunteers – Nomcom for Appeals Team.   This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email.   The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly,   We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task   To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round – other volunteers not chosen are able to stand.   As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms.   Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway.     Thanks,     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     Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Tue Aug 26 20:42:50 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:42:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080827024250.4220190wx4jfshlw@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> OK, you can put my name. -- Jacques Berleur, Prof. Emer. Faculty of Informatics University of Namur 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR Tél. + 32 (0)81 225097 Mobile= +32 (0)475 548379 URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Ian Peter a écrit : > Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more > needed! > > > > So if you haven't done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool now > so we can move on to the next step!. For most people who put their name > forward, there will be no work to do at all - for the five who are chosen to > eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your > time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. > > > > Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me > personally. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ian Peter > > > > _____ > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team > > > > Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. > > > > This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new > Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either > send your name to this list or to me by personal email. > > > > The process is described in full at > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, > > > > We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has > expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating > Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for > this task > > > > To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people > from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the > NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as > independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for > Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to > stand. > > > > As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the > Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible > to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of > previous nomcoms. > > > > Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by > submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this > overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your > participation here will help us to get this task underway. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Tue Aug 26 22:38:20 2008 From: iza at anr.org (iza at anr.org) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:38:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please include me for NomCom. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, 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 javier at funredes.org Tue Aug 26 23:29:54 2008 From: javier at funredes.org (Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pinz=F3n?=) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:29:54 -0400 (AST) Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3001.190.84.66.240.1219807794.squirrel@funredes.org> > So if you haven't done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool > now so we can move on to the next step!. I volunteer. Best, Javier Colombia -- http://funredes.org/javier ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 26 23:53:14 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:53:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080827035314.GA31283@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:25:19AM +1000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more > needed! Add me to list. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From puna_gb at yahoo.com Wed Aug 27 02:15:01 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <20080827024250.4220190wx4jfshlw@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <886988.64744.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All,   I would also like to Volunteer my name for the NomCom pool.   Gaongalelwe Mosweu Botswana Information Technology Society P.O. Box 404465 Gaborone Botswana (+267) 7221 7218 g.mosweu at yahoo.com puna_gb at yahoo.com --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Jacques Berleur wrote: From: Jacques Berleur Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 3:42 AM OK, you can put my name. -- Jacques Berleur, Prof. Emer. Faculty of Informatics University of Namur 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR Tél. + 32 (0)81 225097 Mobile= +32 (0)475 548379 URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Ian Peter a écrit : > Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more > needed! > > > > So if you haven't done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool now > so we can move on to the next step!. For most people who put their name > forward, there will be no work to do at all - for the five who are chosen to > eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your > time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. > > > > Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me > personally. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ian Peter > > > > _____ > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team > > > > Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. > > > > This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new > Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either > send your name to this list or to me by personal email. > > > > The process is described in full at > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, > > > > We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has > expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating > Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for > this task > > > > To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people > from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the > NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as > independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for > Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to > stand. > > > > As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the > Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible > to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of > previous nomcoms. > > > > Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by > submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this > overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your > participation here will help us to get this task underway. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Aug 27 06:01:22 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:01:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080827100122.GA16812@nic.fr> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 11:34:59PM +0530, atanu garai wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > The difference being that ITU standards - so called ITU-T recs - are > mostly available free of charge Not "mostly", all of them: (but ITU-T only, not ITU-R) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 06:05:26 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:05:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080827100526.GB16812@nic.fr> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:11:50PM +0530, atanu garai wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > It has at least published 43 very important standards related to the > Internet and information technology (http://tinyurl.com/6ebtuc). Most of them are not "important". In the list you provide above, you can find complete failures like MHS or other dead-at-birth technologies. Most ISO standards on computer networking were never deployed, partly for the reason you indicate. RFC 5218 "What Makes for a Successful Protocol?" is a good reading here: 2.1.5. Open Specification Availability Open specification availability means the protocol specification is made available to anyone who wishes to use it. This is true for all Internet Drafts and RFCs, and it has contributed to the success of protocol specifications developed within or contributed to the IETF. The various aspects of this factor include: o World-wide distribution: Is the specification accessible from anywhere in the world? o Unrestricted distribution: Are there no legal restrictions on getting the specification? o Permanence: Does the specification remain even after the creator is gone? o Stability: Is there a stable version of the specification that does not change? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 06:06:45 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:06:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <489C9ADD.2060901@rits.org.br> References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> <489C9ADD.2060901@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080827100645.GC16812@nic.fr> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:13:33PM -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote a message of 43 lines which said: > Not so. Summarized docs yes, detailed ones need to be purchased. That's simply not true. ITU-T standards are available (the full text) gratis. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC/e ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 06:08:01 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:08:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <20080827100801.GD16812@nic.fr> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:34:39AM -0000, John Levine wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > ISO standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies > of standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing > whatever a standard describes. That's a strange argument: standards are not read only by implementors but also by students, by system administrators and even by curious people. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 06:10:50 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:10:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> Message-ID: <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > A colleague asked me a standards question that I thought maybe somebody > on the list might have the answer to: is MP3 an open standard or not? Unlike "free software" where all the definitions yield almost the same result, there is no consensus on what is an open standard. See varied (really varied) definitions: http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards (my preferred one) http://www.perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://www.itst.dk/arkitektur-og-standarder/Standardisering/Aabnestandarder/baggrundsrapporter/Evaluation%20of%20Ten%20Standard%20Setting%20Organizations.pdf http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/3761 http://www.bortzmeyer.org/formats-ouverts.html (in French 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 atanugarai.lists at gmail.com Wed Aug 27 06:20:44 2008 From: atanugarai.lists at gmail.com (atanu garai) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:50:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <20080827100801.GD16812@nic.fr> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20080827100801.GD16812@nic.fr> Message-ID: Dear all, thank you for your reflections on this issue. ISO standards are a case in point. This will be an issue that can be taken in IGF 2008. Atanu Garai On 27/08/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:34:39AM -0000, > John Levine wrote > a message of 32 lines which said: > >> ISO standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies >> of standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing >> whatever a standard describes. > > That's a strange argument: standards are not read only by implementors > but also by students, by system administrators and even by curious > people. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Wed Aug 27 06:24:54 2008 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:09:54 +0545 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <886988.64744.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20080827024250.4220190wx4jfshlw@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> <886988.64744.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Please Add me also in the NonCom pool Cheers!!! Hempal Shrestha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 26 10:29:34 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:29:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <489C808E.9090408@rits.org.br> <20080827100122.GA16812@nic.fr> Message-ID: <48B4134D.13C39118@ix.netcom.com> Stephane and all, This has been a long standing problem with the ITU. Different classifications of Documents, some avaliable for free, others not, such as ITU-R, which is really the "Good stuff". So why not ITU-R? Well, my guess has always been, and remains that the ITU, and UN organization isn't really interested in just anyone having access to the good stuff, but can access any of the trivial documentation. Seems to me that this a blatent form of denial of access to knowledge. Others opinion may of course very. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 11:34:59PM +0530, > atanu garai wrote > a message of 24 lines which said: > > > The difference being that ITU standards - so called ITU-T recs - are > > mostly available free of charge > > Not "mostly", all of them: > (but ITU-T > only, not ITU-R) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 26 10:39:31 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:39:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> Message-ID: <48B415A3.E8430C7C@ix.netcom.com> Stephane and all, This is absolutely true as "Open Standards" is concerned... One of the primary reasons this is true, like other "Standards" is that there are so many self defined "Standards Bodies" most of which do not agree with each other as to what is, and what is not a standard. For instance: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html?netht=083007dailynews1&&nladname=083107dailynews Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:43:30PM -0400, > Jeremy Shtern wrote > a message of 73 lines which said: > > > A colleague asked me a standards question that I thought maybe somebody > > on the list might have the answer to: is MP3 an open standard or not? > > Unlike "free software" where all the definitions yield almost the same > result, there is no consensus on what is an open standard. > > See varied (really varied) definitions: > > http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards > (my preferred one) > http://www.perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html > http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > http://www.itst.dk/arkitektur-og-standarder/Standardisering/Aabnestandarder/baggrundsrapporter/Evaluation%20of%20Ten%20Standard%20Setting%20Organizations.pdf > http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/3761 > > http://www.bortzmeyer.org/formats-ouverts.html (in French 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 26 10:44:58 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:44:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20080827100801.GD16812@nic.fr> Message-ID: <48B416EA.6057FF92@ix.netcom.com> Atanu and all, With the approval of ooXML as a ISO standard, vs XML my once remaining confidance in ISO as a actual standards body, has vanished entirely. atanu garai wrote: > Dear all, > thank you for your reflections on this issue. ISO standards are a > case in point. This will be an issue that can be taken in IGF 2008. > Atanu Garai > > On 27/08/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:34:39AM -0000, > > John Levine wrote > > a message of 32 lines which said: > > > >> ISO standards tend to be for complex things where the cost of copies > >> of standards is an insignificant part of the cost of developing > >> whatever a standard describes. > > > > That's a strange argument: standards are not read only by implementors > > but also by students, by system administrators and even by curious > > people. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 14:11:09 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:11:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0AE372C59732404BBACE730621651762@IAN> Thanks everyone who volunteered - looks to me as if we just hit 25 volunteer members! However I'll leave the call for volunteers open until midnight on Tuesday September 2, so if you would like your name added it is not too late. We will publish the names and details for the random selection shortly after that. Thanks, Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 27 August 2008 09:25 To: 'Ian Peter'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Thanks everyone who volunteered, we are up to 16 names now, only nine more needed! So if you haven't done so already, please volunteer for the nomcom pool now so we can move on to the next step!. For most people who put their name forward, there will be no work to do at all - for the five who are chosen to eventually form the NomCom, I would imagine little more than an hour of your time spread over a couple of weeks will be necessary. Please help make up the numbers. Either send an email to the list or to me personally. Thanks Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 25 August 2008 09:02 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team. This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either send your name to this list or to me by personal email. The process is described in full at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for this task To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for Appeals Team this time round - other volunteers not chosen are able to stand. As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of previous nomcoms. Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your participation here will help us to get this task underway. Thanks, 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Aug 27 22:53:56 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:53:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? In-Reply-To: <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, I am sure MP3 is an open standard! This is now the standard DAISY use for its production of talking books for persons with reading and writing disabilities and mainly blind and visually impaired persons, but also others. MP3 is the base and then DAISY standards is brought in to make the reading capacity to fit for instance blind persons who need to rotate around in a book, speed up the speech or search for particular parts in the book. DAISY standard is also open for everyone. Kind regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Skickat: den 27 augusti 2008 12:11 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Shtern Ämne: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely available? On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > A colleague asked me a standards question that I thought maybe > somebody on the list might have the answer to: is MP3 an open standard or not? Unlike "free software" where all the definitions yield almost the same result, there is no consensus on what is an open standard. See varied (really varied) definitions: http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards (my preferred one) http://www.perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://www.itst.dk/arkitektur-og-standarder/Standardisering/Aabnestandarder/baggrundsrapporter/Evaluation%20of%20Ten%20Standard%20Setting%20Organizations.pdf http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/3761 http://www.bortzmeyer.org/formats-ouverts.html (in French 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 23:14:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:44:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Message-ID: <20080828031509.6E5E069C37@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear All We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a working group. The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The draft is done with this context in mind. The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', and we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do agree on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process after finalizing the text. Thanks Parminder IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at Cairo Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its constituent civil society Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes". IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to global Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more social institutions, and on the other hand, global political structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and public-interest centered Internet policies. In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions for policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. It is however equally important to evolve some substantive 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging situations. It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global polity, to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging information society. IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to the MAG. IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new context in a digital environment, where digital public information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. Many other rights like the right of association and the right of political participation have important new implications in the Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve public interest. It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, context. Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. Right to property normally has been considered as an important right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the digital space? Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. _____ [1] To quote some existing initiatives here [2] Mentioned in TA [3] Mentioned in TA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: input to syn paper - rights and the interent.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 23273 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input to syn paper - rights and the Internet.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Aug 27 23:30:08 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:30:08 +0300 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:53:56AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > Dear all, > > I am sure MP3 is an open standard! I am equally sure it is not. As already noted, openness of standards is subject to various definitions, but I don't consider it free if I some users have to pay to use it. MP3 is covered by several patents, and wherever they're valid, MP3 cannot be legally used for commercial purposes without paying a license fee. See http://mp3licensing.com or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licensing_and_patent_issues. > MP3 is the base and then DAISY standards is brought in to make the > reading capacity to fit for instance blind persons who need to > rotate around in a book, speed up the speech or search for > particular parts in the book. Patent-based restrictions probably do not apply in such use. > DAISY standard is also open for everyone. If it is based on MP3, it is not open for commercial use. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Aug 28 06:41:50 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:41:50 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely In-Reply-To: <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Tapani , I am not sure you are right, at least I am very sure that DAISY consortium is a serious concept and they are operating in all countries in the world! You can download DAISY formats on their website free of charge! MP3 is the base for DAISY as it is open to use for everyone! I think a lawyer expert on intellectual properties could give us information on this and I am likewise sure that DAISY do not step into something that internationally should be unlawful! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Skickat: den 28 augusti 2008 05:30 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:53:56AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > Dear all, > > I am sure MP3 is an open standard! I am equally sure it is not. As already noted, openness of standards is subject to various definitions, but I don't consider it free if I some users have to pay to use it. MP3 is covered by several patents, and wherever they're valid, MP3 cannot be legally used for commercial purposes without paying a license fee. See http://mp3licensing.com or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licensing_and_patent_issues. > MP3 is the base and then DAISY standards is brought in to make the > reading capacity to fit for instance blind persons who need to rotate > around in a book, speed up the speech or search for particular parts > in the book. Patent-based restrictions probably do not apply in such use. > DAISY standard is also open for everyone. If it is based on MP3, it is not open for commercial use. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sunil at mahiti.org Thu Aug 28 07:48:05 2008 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:18:05 +0530 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> Dear Friends, On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 12:41 +0200, Kicki Nordström wrote: > I think a lawyer expert on intellectual properties could give us > information on this and I am likewise sure that DAISY do not step into > something that internationally should be unlawful! I am not a lawyer but Tapani Tarvainen is right. MP3 is not a true Open Standard because there are Software Patents associated with the standard that are owned by Thomson Consumer Electronics and the Fraunhofer Society of Germany, even though it is an ISO/IEC standard. These patents are to be licensed by those interested in making an MP3 encoder or decoder under a Reasonable and Non-discriminatory (RAND) license. Royalty rates are provided here. http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html RAND licences are incompatible with most Free Software licences. Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems says that Free Software “serves as the canary in the coalmine for the word ‘Open’. Standards are truly open when they can be implemented without fear as free software in an open source community." Therefore users of the DAISY standard on Windows or Macintosh are completely safe because MP3 support is built into the operating system. And Microsoft and Apple is paying the required royalty. But users of community based GNU/Linux distributions in countries that have constitutionally recognized Software Patents are at risk. This might be an insignificant number for the Daisy Consortium at the moment. But as accessibility improves - I see many more visually challenged users shifting to GNU/Linux. Already a blind user can install Ubuntu Linux unassisted - something that is still not possible on Windows Vista. Best wishes, Sunil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 28 08:19:43 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:19:43 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4FCA@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Kicki, Tapani is right - and you are right that individuals can use mp3 'openly.' Note what he said about commercial use - that's who needs to pay the mp3 rights holders. I presume DAISY is a non-commercial consortium. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Kicki Nordström [mailto:kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org] Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 6:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely Dear Tapani , I am not sure you are right, at least I am very sure that DAISY consortium is a serious concept and they are operating in all countries in the world! You can download DAISY formats on their website free of charge! MP3 is the base for DAISY as it is open to use for everyone! I think a lawyer expert on intellectual properties could give us information on this and I am likewise sure that DAISY do not step into something that internationally should be unlawful! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Skickat: den 28 augusti 2008 05:30 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:53:56AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > Dear all, > > I am sure MP3 is an open standard! I am equally sure it is not. As already noted, openness of standards is subject to various definitions, but I don't consider it free if I some users have to pay to use it. MP3 is covered by several patents, and wherever they're valid, MP3 cannot be legally used for commercial purposes without paying a license fee. See http://mp3licensing.com or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licensing_and_patent_issues. > MP3 is the base and then DAISY standards is brought in to make the > reading capacity to fit for instance blind persons who need to rotate > around in a book, speed up the speech or search for particular parts > in the book. Patent-based restrictions probably do not apply in such use. > DAISY standard is also open for everyone. If it is based on MP3, it is not open for commercial use. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Aug 28 10:07:42 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:07:42 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely In-Reply-To: <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Sunil, Interesting! But if some legal requirement is needed for DAISY Consortium in order to provide digital books for persons with print disabilities, I am sure they have done it as DAISY is such a huge spared format for reading in the world today amongst us who need this format! It is interesting to read your comments on Linux, and it is well known amongst some of us and some are even trying to use it! Unfortunately Ubuntu is very premature yet, as you can not use it that advanced as JAWS, which today is the most developed screen reading program. But for all blind persons living in developing countries (who are 80% of the 180 Million blind persons in the world), I truly hope Ubuntu will soon become an open standard of the same quality as JAWS. It is true, JAWS does not really well work with Windows Vista yet, so most of us using the expensive JAWS will wait for a new version to soon be released. I think I will get in touch with DAISY consortium and ask them of how they manage to use MP3 and not valuate intellectual properties! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Sunil Abraham [mailto:sunil at mahiti.org] Skickat: den 28 augusti 2008 13:48 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kicki Nordström Kopia: Tapani Tarvainen Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely Dear Friends, On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 12:41 +0200, Kicki Nordström wrote: > I think a lawyer expert on intellectual properties could give us > information on this and I am likewise sure that DAISY do not step into > something that internationally should be unlawful! I am not a lawyer but Tapani Tarvainen is right. MP3 is not a true Open Standard because there are Software Patents associated with the standard that are owned by Thomson Consumer Electronics and the Fraunhofer Society of Germany, even though it is an ISO/IEC standard. These patents are to be licensed by those interested in making an MP3 encoder or decoder under a Reasonable and Non-discriminatory (RAND) license. Royalty rates are provided here. http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html RAND licences are incompatible with most Free Software licences. Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems says that Free Software "serves as the canary in the coalmine for the word 'Open'. Standards are truly open when they can be implemented without fear as free software in an open source community." Therefore users of the DAISY standard on Windows or Macintosh are completely safe because MP3 support is built into the operating system. And Microsoft and Apple is paying the required royalty. But users of community based GNU/Linux distributions in countries that have constitutionally recognized Software Patents are at risk. This might be an insignificant number for the Daisy Consortium at the moment. But as accessibility improves - I see many more visually challenged users shifting to GNU/Linux. Already a blind user can install Ubuntu Linux unassisted - something that is still not possible on Windows Vista. Best wishes, Sunil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 28 10:37:44 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:37:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Caribbean Internet Forum 2008 - Draft Agenda References: <0D5E06A8BBF4D048864B554DAC6E9CB2B68D7C@sauwiexch01.sauwi.uwi.tt> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4FCD@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> FYI, 6th Caribbean Internet Forum is Oct. 29-31. This year's theme is 'Mobile Internet for Development.' I'm sure igcers would be welcome, follow the links below to check out the agenda and/or register. CIF is a regional multistakeholder Internet forum, with a couple years head start on IGF. CIF's evolution informs some of my views on IGF. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Collins [mailto:Pamela.Collins at sta.uwi.edu] Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 10:24 AM To: CIFinvitees at eng.uwi.tt Subject: RE: Caribbean Internet Forum 2008 - Draft Agenda Dear Colleagues Here's a reminder that the Sixth Annual Caribbean Internet Forum (CIF) will be hosted at the Crowne Plaza, Port of Spain, from October 29 - 31, 2008. The agenda (http://www.cif.tt/2008/CIF%202008%20Draft%20Agenda.pdf) comprises a rich selection of regional and international speakers addressing various dimensions of the central theme: the Mobile Internet for Development. We look forward to seeing you there and would appreciate your registration (http://www.cif.tt/2008.php) by September 12. If you wish to attend but need to register after September 12, please confirm this with Ms Simonta-Dyer at the earliest possible time. Mrs C. Simonta-Dyer Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of the West Indies St Augustine candice.simonta at sta.uwi.edu Tel: 662-2002, Ext.2637 Best regards, Kim Kim I. Mallalieu (PhD) Head, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Coordinator, MRP (Telecommunications) The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Trinidad and Tobago Phone (868) 662-2002 ext. 2167 Fax: (868) 662-4414 Email: kim.mallalieu at sta.uwi.edu Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Goethe ________________________________ From: Kim Mallalieu Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2008 05:52 PM To: CIFinvitees at eng.uwi.tt Subject: Caribbean Internet Forum 2008 - Draft Agenda Dear Colleagues, The Sixth Annual Caribbean Internet Forum (CIF) will be hosted at the Crowne Plaza, Port of Spain, from October 29 - 31, 2008. The theme this year is 'The Mobile Internet for Development'. Over three days, the Forum will explore the broad sub-themes of: * Innovations for the Mobile Internet * Community wireless access * The enabling environment. The draft agenda is attached. We would like to encourage you to register well in advance of the September 12 deadline. Registration information is available on the CIF website (http://www.cif.tt/) and you may contact ciftt at sta.uwi.edu for further information. Your contributions in the Forum would be highly valued so we very much look forward to your participation. Apologies if you receive this announcement more than once. Warm regards, Kim Kim I. Mallalieu (PhD) Head, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Coordinator, MRP (Telecommunications) The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Trinidad and Tobago Phone (868) 662-2002 ext. 2167 Fax: (868) 662-4414 Email: kim.mallalieu at sta.uwi.edu Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Goethe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Aug 28 14:16:04 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:04 +0300 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > if some legal requirement is needed for DAISY Consortium in > order to provide digital books for persons with print disabilities, > I am sure they have done it as DAISY is such a huge spared format > for reading in the world today amongst us who need this format! They probably either have made some kind of deal with patent holders, possibly royalty-free license that covers their use, or they're relying on their non-commercial nature (patents only restrict commercial use, as noted). Also, in copyright legislation there are certain legal exemptions for people with disabilities; I don't know of such in patent legislation, but there might be some that are relevant here. > I think I will get in touch with DAISY consortium and ask them of > how they manage to use MP3 and not valuate intellectual properties! If you do, I for one would be interested in hearing what they reply. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 28 17:24:36 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:24:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080828031509.6E5E069C37@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <001401c90954$9824c820$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Parminder, I'm not clear as to what this paper is meant to accomplish, who its intended audience is and how, when and in what format it will be distributed. MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Dear All We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a working group. The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The draft is done with this context in mind. The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', and we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do agree on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process after finalizing the text. Thanks Parminder IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at Cairo Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its constituent civil society Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes". IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to global Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more social institutions, and on the other hand, global political structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and public-interest centered Internet policies. In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions for policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. It is however equally important to evolve some substantive 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging situations. It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global polity, to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging information society. IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to the MAG. IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new context in a digital environment, where digital public information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. Many other rights like the right of association and the right of political participation have important new implications in the Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve public interest. It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, context. Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. Right to property normally has been considered as an important right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the digital space? Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. _____ [1] To quote some existing initiatives here [2] Mentioned in TA [3] Mentioned in TA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 27 20:17:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:17:12 -0700 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <48B5EE88.26D44C1@ix.netcom.com> Kicki and all, As you should and likely know, legal experts often disagree. The only likely course of action to for a reasonable certantity solve this dispute/issue is the file a reexamination of any patent on MP3/DAISY on grounds that it is a valid patent and for what reasons it may or may not be. A daunting task, and likely and expensive one as well... Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Tapani , > > I am not sure you are right, at least I am very sure that DAISY consortium is a serious concept and they are operating in all countries in the world! You can download DAISY formats on their website free of charge! MP3 is the base for DAISY as it is open to use for everyone! > > I think a lawyer expert on intellectual properties could give us information on this and I am likewise sure that DAISY do not step into something that internationally should be unlawful! > > Yours > Kicki > > Kicki Nordström > Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) > World Blind Union (WBU) > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Skickat: den 28 augusti 2008 05:30 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not freely > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:53:56AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I am sure MP3 is an open standard! > > I am equally sure it is not. > > As already noted, openness of standards is subject to various definitions, but I don't consider it free if I some users have to pay to use it. > > MP3 is covered by several patents, and wherever they're valid, > MP3 cannot be legally used for commercial purposes without paying a license fee. See http://mp3licensing.com or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licensing_and_patent_issues. > > > MP3 is the base and then DAISY standards is brought in to make the > > reading capacity to fit for instance blind persons who need to rotate > > around in a book, speed up the speech or search for particular parts > > in the book. > > Patent-based restrictions probably do not apply in such use. > > > DAISY standard is also open for everyone. > > If it is based on MP3, it is not open for commercial use. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 28 23:32:44 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:02:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <001401c90954$9824c820$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080829033300.04F81A6C27@smtp2.electricembers.net> Michael (and others) The IGF brings out what it calls a synthesis paper for each IGF meeting. It is a kind of official conference paper with translations in all languages. Since thousands attend the IGF, it can be considered to have a good audience, though actual readership is not known. It is a written format which can be used to put our views forward, and, somewhat officially, into the IGF. Often, there is so much effort to get a few minutes of 'talk time' at the IGF, but I think this written format is also an important 'space' to use strategically. The text proposed by me is to serve as an IGC input into this synthesis paper. I understand that civil society needs to rely more on force of reason built on collective values to push its political positions, since it, by definition, has little or no 'institutional' power. That makes using such 'spaces' as the official conference paper very important for the IGC. As I understand, one of the principal contributions of civil society to global policy space is of providing fodder for deliberation. Now, for the substantive content of the proposed draft: A few days back, the IGC proposed that IGF should make 'rights and the Internet' as the overall theme of IGF, Egypt. A very laudable proposal indeed. But now if the IGF secretariat or the MAG, quite justifiably asks us - making an issue as 'the' over-arching theme of IGF is a really a big thing, so can you please tell us (1) why it is important to do so, and (2) what would be the broad contours of a 'rights and the Internet discourse'. We cannot then say, please don't ask us these things, we don't want to get into such controversies. MAG will reply, thanks very much, neither do we, so lets keep discussing access, security and openness in a meaninglessly broad form. The proposed draft tries to anticipate these two questions and frame some response. I think such an IGC input is needed if our desire for making rights a central issue in IGF is really serious.. And as I said, it is only a very rough draft put up to invoke comments and suggestions. Parminder _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:55 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Parminder, I'm not clear as to what this paper is meant to accomplish, who its intended audience is and how, when and in what format it will be distributed. MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Dear All We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a working group. The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The draft is done with this context in mind. The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', and we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do agree on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process after finalizing the text. Thanks Parminder IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at Cairo Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its constituent civil society Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes". IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to global Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more social institutions, and on the other hand, global political structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and public-interest centered Internet policies. In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions for policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. It is however equally important to evolve some substantive 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging situations. It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global polity, to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging information society. IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to the MAG. IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new context in a digital environment, where digital public information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. Many other rights like the right of association and the right of political participation have important new implications in the Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve public interest. It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, context. Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. Right to property normally has been considered as an important right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the digital space? Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. _____ _____ [1] To quote some existing initiatives here [2] Mentioned in TA [3] Mentioned in TA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 29 05:25:28 2008 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:25:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who are we in the name of CS? Message-ID: Dear all, As one of newly appointed MAG members through 2008 WSIS CS IGC nominating comittee's election, I would like to bring the issue of CS cooperation between CS IGC and CS ITC (Internet Technical Community) for 2008 IGF main session workshop coordination. According to the list of who have been contributing to the main workshop coordination, many contributors from CS IGC and CS ITC have been shaping main workshops despite lack of participation from other stakeholders. My attention to how to improve other stakeholders' participation in the MAG as well as more CS IGC engagement with some of main sessions invited one of long-standing issues of how to handle revolving indentities of each member and the united identity of CS. This issue can be also extended to the current initiative of OECD's effort to institutionalize CS in its decision-making process together with BIAC and TUAC. As some of you know, the same issue was brought up in the recent Coalition mailing list. Is it possible to put CS ITC and CS IGC (and possibly other CS organizations) in the name of CS? It would be timely for CS IGC to discuss how to handle CS identity in a more consistent manner in various Internet Governance related fora. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to thank those who supported me in the nominating committee process as well as the outgoing MAG members from CS IGC for their services to the IGC. Your inputs on "Who are we in the name of CS?"will be appreciated. YJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 28 12:13:15 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:13:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] Who are we in the name of CS? References: Message-ID: <48B6CE9B.BEEF3109@ix.netcom.com> YJ and all, Thanks for chiming in YJ! >:) One of the discouraging things on this forum I have taken notice of is the lack of some participants desiring other stakeholders from participating. Jacques for instance has sent me two Emails seemingly attempting to limit my participation as spokesman for our members. This is very discouraging. Perhaps addressing intimidation issues like that would be advantagious? YJ Park wrote: > Dear all, As one of newly appointed MAG members through 2008 WSIS CS > IGC nominating comittee's election, I would like to bring the issue of > CS cooperation between CS IGC and CS ITC (Internet Technical > Community) for 2008 IGF main session workshop coordination. According > to the list of who have been contributing to the main workshop > coordination, many contributors from CS IGC and CS ITC have been > shaping main workshops despite lack of participation from other > stakeholders. My attention to how to improve other stakeholders' > participation in the MAG as well as more CS IGC engagement with some > of main sessions invited one of long-standing issues of how to handle > revolving indentities of each member and the united identity of > CS. This issue can be also extended to the current initiative of > OECD's effort to institutionalize CS in its decision-making process > together with BIAC and TUAC. As some of you know, the same issue was > brought up in the recent Coalition mailing list. Is it possible to put > CS ITC and CS IGC (and possibly other CS organizations) in the name of > CS? It would be timely for CS IGC to discuss how to handle CS identity > in a more consistent manner in various Internet Governance related > fora. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to thank > those who supported me in the nominating committee process as well as > the outgoing MAG members from CS IGC for their services to the > IGC. Your inputs on "Who are we in the name of CS?"will be > appreciated.YJ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 11:19:03 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:19:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who are we in the name of CS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080829151910.C224970000A5@mwinf2f08.orange.fr> Hi YJ, First and belated my sincere congrats to your MAG nomination and to all others who were elected. We struggle in every aggregated coalition with these CS definitions. In CIVICUS we say: Everything not family, government or market, similarly what already Michael Edward had defined in the 90s. Wish you well, Renate _____ From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark21 at gmail.com] Sent: vendredi, 29. août 2008 11:25 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Who are we in the name of CS? Dear all, As one of newly appointed MAG members through 2008 WSIS CS IGC nominating comittee's election, I would like to bring the issue of CS cooperation between CS IGC and CS ITC (Internet Technical Community) for 2008 IGF main session workshop coordination. According to the list of who have been contributing to the main workshop coordination, many contributors from CS IGC and CS ITC have been shaping main workshops despite lack of participation from other stakeholders. My attention to how to improve other stakeholders' participation in the MAG as well as more CS IGC engagement with some of main sessions invited one of long-standing issues of how to handle revolving indentities of each member and the united identity of CS. This issue can be also extended to the current initiative of OECD's effort to institutionalize CS in its decision-making process together with BIAC and TUAC. As some of you know, the same issue was brought up in the recent Coalition mailing list. Is it possible to put CS ITC and CS IGC (and possibly other CS organizations) in the name of CS? It would be timely for CS IGC to discuss how to handle CS identity in a more consistent manner in various Internet Governance related fora. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to thank those who supported me in the nominating committee process as well as the outgoing MAG members from CS IGC for their services to the IGC. Your inputs on "Who are we in the name of CS?"will be appreciated. YJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Fri Aug 29 13:23:26 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Martin Wolf Andersen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:23:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation on the Cluster of WSIS-Related Events 2009, 15 September 2008 Geneva In-Reply-To: <1211453261-2ce2f0a37275dd5bd8dd40842fc539e2@ngocongo.org> Message-ID: <1220030606-ce5c7d536e59fd23acc6019399a76a28@ngocongo.org> Open Consultation on the Cluster of WSIS-Related Events 2009, 15 September 2008, Geneva The Consultation on the Cluster of WSIS-Related Events 2009 is to follow up on the outcomes of the third meeting of WSIS Action Line Facilitators, 23 May 2008. It is open to all stakeholders. Registration and badge requests are possible online as of 30 August 2008. The event will take place at the ITU Headquaters, Geneva, Room B. More information and background documentation can be obtained here . Any written contributions/position papers may be submitted prior to the meeting and will be posted on the WSIS website. Such submissions should be directed to wsis-info at itu.int and beatrice.pluchon at itu.int. Best regards, Martin Wolf Andersen Geneva Team International Secretariat Management Team Conference of NGOs (CONGO) Avenue de la Paix 11 CH-1202 Geneva, Switzerland T: +41 22 301 1000 F: +41 22 301 2000 www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sat Aug 30 10:57:25 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:57:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - Nomcom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN DR CONGO ACSIS SUB REGIONAL COORDINATOR FOR CENTRAL AFRICA +243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com 2008/8/25 Ian Peter > Call for Volunteers – Nomcom for Appeals Team. > > > > This is a call for volunteers for the IGC NomCom for appointment of a new > Appeals Team. To get this started, we need at least 25 volunteers. Either > send your name to this list or to me by personal email. > > > > The process is described in full at > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.htm. But briefly, > > > > We need to appoint a new 5 member Appeals Team as their current term has > expired. The appointments to the Appeals Team will be made by a Nominating > Committee (nomcom) of five randomly chosen members of the volunteer pool for > this task > > > > To choose the NomCom, we need a pool of a minimum of 25 volunteers. 5 > people from the pool will be chosen via a pre-determined algorithm to serve > as the NomCom and make the appointments, working with David Goldstein as > independent non voting Chair. Those chosen will not be able to stand for > Appeals Team this time round – other volunteers not chosen are able to > stand. > > > > As far as I can see the only members excluded from volunteering are the > Co-ordinators. Members of the previous appeals team, as they are ineligible > to stand again, are able to volunteer for the NomCom. So are members of > previous nomcoms. > > > > Everyone is urged to volunteer. So please consider volunteering by > submitting your name now by return email. We cannot proceed with this > overdue appeals team replacement until we have 25 volunteers. Your > participation here will help us to get this task underway. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sat Aug 30 14:42:19 2008 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:42:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? Message-ID: Thought i'd share the following article that I just came across. It comes under the issue of protection of minors from "harmful" content, a topic that will be quite present at this year's IGF. As the article covers issues related to rights, ICANN, and internet policy - well, thought it would be good to forward to the list and seek comments from this community. It is an issue not to be dismissed, as there are quite a number of workshops and/or panels at this year's IGF on the topic. regards Robert --- http://techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1902492075.shtml The proposal comes from a professor from Brigham Young University, Cheryl B. Preston, who's proposing the idea for an Internet Community Ports Act (ICPA), which would create special "zones" online where it would be okay for "adult" material to reside, and other zones that would be kid friendly [snipped] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 30 17:09:24 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:09:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:42:19 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Robert Guerra writes >Thought i'd share the following article that I just came across. It >comes under the issue of protection of minors from "harmful" content, >a topic that will be quite present at this year's IGF. > >As the article covers issues related to rights, ICANN, and internet >policy - well, thought it would be good to forward to the list and >seek comments from this community. It is an issue not to be dismissed, >as there are quite a number of workshops and/or panels at this year's >IGF on the topic. > >http://techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1902492075.shtml > >The proposal comes from a professor from Brigham Young University, >Cheryl B. Preston, who's proposing the idea for an Internet Community >Ports Act (ICPA), which would create special "zones" online where it >would be okay for "adult" material to reside, Is that "adult" as [se]X-rated, or merely "unsuitable for kids" (like horror, violence... despite everyone keeping their clothes on?) >and other zones that would be kid friendly Are these exclusively North American kids? What about the things that kids in other countries might want to be protected from (such as promotion of tobacco, sale of Nazi memorabilia etc)? Many people also argue that it's parents' (and not publishers' or distributors') responsibility to control what their children have access to. Suitable tools are required, however. Rather than a special zone for adults, most people propose a special zone for kids, and various sorts of walled gardens have been proposed for the best part of 15 years (MSN was going to one, but it never quite got the expected traction). The only proposal that makes sense is for different communities to produce their own criteria for what's acceptable and what isn't, and then find someone to implement it for them. Which can be done "in the network" (hopefully quite locally) or in the user equipment. There's not much point in debating, in a global forum, what might be "in" or "out" in any one particular country (getting a global standard is clearly a huge challenge). So that's only really of interest to people in each country (and there's a whole range of non-IGF-attending local stakeholders who will want to express a view within each country). The problems arise when you don't fully trust the people making the "in/out" decisions on your behalf, which sounds like it might be a suitable topic for "best practice", bearing mind the chair's desire to avoid "beauty competitions". (I speak in a personal capacity, as someone who helped set up the UK's first "Family friendly" ISP in 1994 [we had a restricted usenet feed, and a strict AUP for material hosted by customers] and nearly ten years now working with the IWF [the world's leading regulator for child abuse material]. I've also lived through the ICRA and "ratings" wars.) -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Aug 30 18:53:50 2008 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Robert, Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's NonCommercial Constituency, just as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification you could arrange a debate on this topic within your own constituency. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Aug 30 19:42:51 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:42:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48B9DAFB.5040202@rits.org.br> I hope this does not mean debating th issue in our NCUC constituency *instead* of in the IGC. --c.a. Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's NonCommercial Constituency, just as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification you could arrange a debate on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 29 22:48:13 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:48:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: Message-ID: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> Robert and all, With all due respect to Mrs. Cheryl B. Preston I have great doubts that such a concept will be widely excepted and would already be in conflict with some US state laws. Had this idea been floated some 8 years ago by the ICANN staff as was recomended at that time, and before many US state laws governing such web sites existance, the idea might have had some traction and garnered some serious consideration. Not likely now. Too little too late. I am afraid and disappointed now that dealing with adult content or web sites whose theme is adult content, is in the hands of the FCC, DOC/NTIA, and perhaps, the US supreme court. A better approach *Might* be to require by law, all adults that are parents be mandated to install certain software that would prevent their children from accessing any adult web sites or content. I would encourage US states to consider this, as well as the USG involved agencies to regulate along these lines accordingly. Robert Guerra wrote: > Thought i'd share the following article that I just came across. It > comes under the issue of protection of minors from "harmful" content, > a topic that will be quite present at this year's IGF. > > As the article covers issues related to rights, ICANN, and internet > policy - well, thought it would be good to forward to the list and > seek comments from this community. It is an issue not to be dismissed, > as there are quite a number of workshops and/or panels at this year's > IGF on the topic. > > regards > > Robert > --- > > http://techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1902492075.shtml > > The proposal comes from a professor from Brigham Young University, > Cheryl B. Preston, who's proposing the idea for an Internet Community > Ports Act (ICPA), which would create special "zones" online where it > would be okay for "adult" material to reside, and other zones that > would be kid friendly > > [snipped] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 29 22:54:47 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:54:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: Message-ID: <48B8B677.960D7421@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Excellent remarks in response. I agree with your sentiments fully. I fear that once we consider "Zoning" as a means to manage content or DN's/web sites, many other types of content will be adversely effected for many different reasons that may or may not be universally publically excepted. Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 14:42:19 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Robert Guerra > writes > >Thought i'd share the following article that I just came across. It > >comes under the issue of protection of minors from "harmful" content, > >a topic that will be quite present at this year's IGF. > > > >As the article covers issues related to rights, ICANN, and internet > >policy - well, thought it would be good to forward to the list and > >seek comments from this community. It is an issue not to be dismissed, > >as there are quite a number of workshops and/or panels at this year's > >IGF on the topic. > > > >http://techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1902492075.shtml > > > >The proposal comes from a professor from Brigham Young University, > >Cheryl B. Preston, who's proposing the idea for an Internet Community > >Ports Act (ICPA), which would create special "zones" online where it > >would be okay for "adult" material to reside, > > Is that "adult" as [se]X-rated, or merely "unsuitable for kids" (like > horror, violence... despite everyone keeping their clothes on?) > > >and other zones that would be kid friendly > > Are these exclusively North American kids? What about the things that > kids in other countries might want to be protected from (such as > promotion of tobacco, sale of Nazi memorabilia etc)? > > Many people also argue that it's parents' (and not publishers' or > distributors') responsibility to control what their children have access > to. Suitable tools are required, however. > > Rather than a special zone for adults, most people propose a special > zone for kids, and various sorts of walled gardens have been proposed > for the best part of 15 years (MSN was going to one, but it never quite > got the expected traction). > > The only proposal that makes sense is for different communities to > produce their own criteria for what's acceptable and what isn't, and > then find someone to implement it for them. Which can be done "in the > network" (hopefully quite locally) or in the user equipment. > > There's not much point in debating, in a global forum, what might be > "in" or "out" in any one particular country (getting a global standard > is clearly a huge challenge). So that's only really of interest to > people in each country (and there's a whole range of non-IGF-attending > local stakeholders who will want to express a view within each country). > > The problems arise when you don't fully trust the people making the > "in/out" decisions on your behalf, which sounds like it might be a > suitable topic for "best practice", bearing mind the chair's desire to > avoid "beauty competitions". > > (I speak in a personal capacity, as someone who helped set up the UK's > first "Family friendly" ISP in 1994 [we had a restricted usenet feed, > and a strict AUP for material hosted by customers] and nearly ten years > now working with the IWF [the world's leading regulator for child abuse > material]. I've also lived through the ICRA and "ratings" wars.) > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 31 02:28:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:58:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S Message-ID: <20080831062832.B943BE2F63@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thought will be useful to the list. Parminder Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S. By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO - The era of the American Internet is ending. Invented by American computer scientists during the 1970s, the Internet has been embraced around the globe. During the network's first three decades, most Internet traffic flowed through the United States. In many cases, data sent between two locations within a given country also passed through the United States. Engineers who help run the Internet said that it would have been impossible for the United States to maintain its hegemony over the long run because of the very nature of the Internet; it has no central point of control. And now, the balance of power is shifting. Data is increasingly flowing around the United States, which may have intelligence - and conceivably military - consequences. American intelligence officials have warned about this shift. "Because of the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing with a tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to exploit that edge," Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006. "We also need to protect that edge, and we need to protect those who provide it to us." Indeed, Internet industry executives and government officials have acknowledged that Internet traffic passing through the switching equipment of companies based in the United States has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence agencies. In December 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had established a program with the cooperation of American telecommunications firms that included the interception of foreign Internet communications. Some Internet technologists and privacy advocates say those actions and other government policies may be hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away from the United States. "Since passage of the Patriot Act, many companies based outside of the United States have been reluctant to store client information in the U.S.," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "There is an ongoing concern that U.S. intelligence agencies will gather this information without legal process. There is particular sensitivity about access to financial information as well as communications and Internet traffic that goes through U.S. switches." But economics also plays a role. Almost all nations see data networks as essential to economic development. "It's no different than any other infrastructure that a country needs," said K C Claffy, a research scientist at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis in San Diego. "You wouldn't want someone owning your roads either." Indeed, more countries are becoming aware of how their dependence on other countries for their Internet traffic makes them vulnerable. Because of tariffs, pricing anomalies and even corporate cultures, Internet providers will often not exchange data with their local competitors. They prefer instead to send and receive traffic with larger international Internet service providers. This leads to odd routing arrangements, referred to as tromboning, in which traffic between two cites in one country will flow through other nations. In January, when a cable was cut in the Mediterranean, Egyptian Internet traffic was nearly paralyzed because it was not being shared by local I.S.P.'s but instead was routed through European operators. The issue was driven home this month when hackers attacked and immobilized several Georgian government Web sites during the country's fighting with Russia. Most of Georgia's access to the global network flowed through Russia and Turkey. A third route through an undersea cable linking Georgia to Bulgaria is scheduled for completion in September. Ms. Claffy said that the shift away from the United States was not limited to developing countries. The Japanese "are on a rampage to build out across India and China so they have alternative routes and so they don't have to route through the U.S." Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota who tracks the growth of the global Internet, added, "We discovered the Internet, but we couldn't keep it a secret." While the United States carried 70 percent of the world's Internet traffic a decade ago, he estimates that portion has fallen to about 25 percent. Internet technologists say that the global data network that was once a competitive advantage for the United States is now increasingly outside the control of American companies. They decided not to invest in lower-cost optical fiber lines, which have rapidly become a commodity business. That lack of investment mirrors a pattern that has taken place elsewhere in the high-technology industry, from semiconductors to personal computers. The risk, Internet technologists say, is that upstarts like China and India are making larger investments in next-generation Internet technology that is likely to be crucial in determining the future of the network, with investment, innovation and profits going first to overseas companies. "Whether it's a good or a bad thing depends on where you stand," said Vint Cerf, a computer scientist who is Google's Internet evangelist and who, with Robert Kahn, devised the original Internet routing protocols in the early 1970s. "Suppose the Internet was entirely confined to the U.S., which it once was? That wasn't helpful." International networks that carry data into and out of the United States are still being expanded at a sharp rate, but the Internet infrastructure in many other regions of the world is growing even more quickly. While there has been some concern over a looming Internet traffic jam because of the rise in Internet use worldwide, the congestion is generally not on the Internet's main trunk lines, but on neighborhood switches, routers and the wires into a house. As Internet traffic moves offshore, it may complicate the task of American intelligence gathering agencies, but would not make Internet surveillance impossible. "We're probably in one of those situations where things get a little bit harder," said John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who said the United States had invested far too little in collecting intelligence via the Internet. "We've given terrorists a free ride in cyberspace," he said. Others say the eclipse of the United States as the central point in cyberspace is one of many indicators that the world is becoming a more level playing field both economically and politically. "This is one of many dimensions on which we'll have to adjust to a reduction in American ability to dictate terms of core interests of ours," said Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. "We are, by comparison, militarily weaker, economically poorer and technologically less unique than we were then. We are still a very big player, but not in control." China, for instance, surpassed the United States in the number of Internet users in June. Over all, Asia now has 578.5 million, or 39.5 percent, of the world's Internet users, although only 15.3 percent of the Asian population is connected to the Internet, according to Internet World Stats, a market research organization. By contrast, there were about 237 million Internet users in North America and the growth has nearly peaked; penetration of the Internet in the region has reached about 71 percent. The increasing role of new competitors has shown up in data collected annually by Renesys, a firm in Manchester, N.H., that monitors the connections between Internet providers. The Renesys rankings of Internet connections, an indirect measure of growth, show that the big winners in the last three years have been the Italian Internet provider Tiscali, China Telecom and the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI. Firms that have slipped in the rankings have all been American: Verizon, Savvis, AT&T, Qwest, Cogent and AboveNet. "The U.S. telecommunications firms haven't invested," said Earl Zmijewski, vice president and general manager for Internet data services at Renesys. "The rest of the world has caught up. I don't see the AT&T's and Sprints making the investments because they see Internet service as a commodity." Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 31 02:38:55 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:38:55 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080829033300.04F81A6C27@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Just some quick feedback here as it is important to keep this moving. I think it is too long and takes too long to get to the point. I would drop the four paragraphs after the first one and get straight into the proposal. My amended text then would be as follows. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil > society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization > of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > STUFF DELETED HERE RESUMES BELOW> > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet > policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse > regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and > principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions > that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends > that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for > IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. > The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject > which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to > the MAG. > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and > specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and > the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area > of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, > are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens > as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the > IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > political participation have important new implications in the Internet > age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve > public interest. > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many > new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. > It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what > does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > context. > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital > arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner > largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the > term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > digital space? > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, > initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming > much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central > to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis > and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start > in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being > planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the > main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing > 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > Dear All > > > > We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF > Hyderabad on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the > IGF'. > > > > Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We > can build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very > different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a > working group. > > > > The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and > positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth such > ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good 'space' > through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The draft is > done with this context in mind. > > > > The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', > and we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic > Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, > shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. > > > > It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and > inputs. There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in > capturing the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. > > > > The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do > agree on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus > process after finalizing the text. > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, > at Cairo > > > > Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and > its constituent civil society > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil > society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization > of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to > global Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. > On one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong > global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more social > institutions, and on the other hand, global political structures are, > very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to be up to the > challenge of effectively making democratic and public-interest centered > Internet policies. > > > > In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate > institutions for policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, > it may help to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must > underpin these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions > that are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. > > > > Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. > Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have > been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code of > conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other > initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' > of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic > governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. > > > > It is however equally important to evolve some substantive > 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet > policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a > 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an > information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the > centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their > specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the > information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human > rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based > conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging situations. > > > > It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global > polity, to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human > rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet > policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. > The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong > reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging > information society. > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet > policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse > regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and > principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions > that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends > that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for > IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. > The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject > which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to > the MAG. > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and > specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and > the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area > of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, > are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens > as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the > IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > political participation have important new implications in the Internet > age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve > public interest. > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many > new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. > It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what > does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > context. > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital > arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner > largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the > term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > digital space? > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, > initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming > much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central > to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis > and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start > in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being > planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the > main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing > 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > ________________________________ > > [1] To quote some existing initiatives here > > [2] Mentioned in TA > > [3] Mentioned in TA > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 02:54:48 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:54:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005b01c90b36$75b4c310$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Ian and all, I've done an edit for clarity etc. of Parminder's original as attached. I haven't included your changes. (I think that we should be working with a wiki here... MG -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: August 30, 2008 11:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Just some quick feedback here as it is important to keep this moving. I think it is too long and takes too long to get to the point. I would drop the four paragraphs after the first one and get straight into the proposal. My amended text then would be as follows. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives > in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > STUFF DELETED HERE RESUMES BELOW> > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional > frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was > identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on > this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill > of Rights to the MAG. > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a people-centered > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help > operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned by > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from > citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception > covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > political participation have important new implications in the > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that > best serve public interest. > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it > may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all > IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does > the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > context. > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important right. > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand > the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > digital space? > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's > nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more > that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many > or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and > conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should > start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are > being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently > in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards > developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > Dear All > > > > We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad > on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. > > > > Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can > build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very different > starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a working > group. > > > > The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and > positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth > such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good > 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The > draft is done with this context in mind. > > > > The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', and > we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic Coalition > of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, > shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. > > > > It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. > There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing > the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. > > > > The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do agree > on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process > after finalizing the text. > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at > Cairo > > > > Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its > constituent civil society > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives > in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to global > Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On > one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong > global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more > social institutions, and on the other hand, global political > structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to > be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and > public-interest centered Internet policies. > > > > In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions for > policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help to > first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin these > polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that are > engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. > > > > Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. > Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have > been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code > of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other > initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' > of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic > governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. > > > > It is however equally important to evolve some substantive > 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet > policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a > 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an > information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the > centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their > specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the > information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human > rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based > conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging > situations. > > > > It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global polity, > to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human rights. > This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet policy > institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. The > WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong reaffirmation > of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging information > society. > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional > frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was > identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on > this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill > of Rights to the MAG. > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a people-centered > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help > operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned by > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from > citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception > covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > political participation have important new implications in the > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that > best serve public interest. > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it > may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all > IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does > the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > context. > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important right. > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand > the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > digital space? > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's > nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more > that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many > or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and > conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should > start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are > being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently > in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards > developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > ________________________________ > > [1] To quote some existing initiatives here > > [2] Mentioned in TA > > [3] Mentioned in TA > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > 8/9/2008 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input to syn paper - rights and the Internet-clear.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input to syn paper - rights and the Internet.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 31 03:36:22 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S Message-ID: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 03:45:58 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:15:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S In-Reply-To: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder and All, The trends reported in the NY Times article point to the possibility of the Internet becoming a level playing field. But can we afford to assume that there would be a perfect balance? I would rather wonder where the next center for power would be. China? Europe? Japan? History shows several instances of one imbalanced replaced by yet another kind of imbalance in the process of the intended act of balancing. On the Internet what next ? As far Jeffrey's response, I have a feeling that the Security Concerns are usually exaggerated or even propagandized to make it easy to argue that the Internet needs to be controlled and regulated. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ISOC India Chennai. On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Parminder and all, > > Yes the New York Times and slasdot also have been carrying a similar > story. > > (see below my remarks )... > > I wrote both of my senators and congressmen about this expressing my > > and our members concerns and questions regarding this "Event" which > > was of course expected or should have been. We in the US are still > > very concerned or paranoid, depending on your point of view, of > > terrorism, fraud, and abuse of various sorts from within and from > > without our own boarders. The level of concern seems to some > > us citizens, justified, and to others not justified. > > Given the number of phishing scam Email I have received and > > immediately reported yet have seen no apparent action upon, > > and the amount of "Child Porn" spamming I have also received > > with seemingly just as little recognizable *Proper* if any action > > upon, I am puzzled as to what the broader justification is or > > may be for the recent passed legislation/laws both state and federal > > that has actually aided in any significant way that citizens reporting > > themselves could not have otherwise achieved within previously > > existing law. Yet I remain steadfast in favor of once establishing > > whom these perps are of may be to be sought out and dealt with > > accordingly. Problem is how does one accurately define whom > > such sorts of perps be positively identified if originating outside > > my own country and without much better cooperation of non-US > > LEA's accordingly. A real circular conundrum indeed! > > See: > > New York Times story about how internet > traffic is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/business/30pipes.html > increasingly flowing around the US as web-based industries > catch up in other parts of the world. Other issues, such as > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/24/1959201&tid=217 the > Patriot Act, have made foreign companies wary about having their data on > > US servers. From the NYTimes: "Internet industry executives and > > government officials have acknowledged that Internet traffic passing > through the switching equipment of companies based in the United States > has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence agencies. In > December 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security > Agency had established a program with the cooperation of American > telecommunications firms that included the interception of foreign > Internet communications. Some Internet technologists and privacy > advocates say those actions and other government policies may be > hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away from the > United States." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder > Sent: Aug 31, 2008 2:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S > > Thought will be useful to the list. Parminder > > > > > > Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S. By JOHN MARKOFF > > > > SAN FRANCISCO — The era of the American Internet is ending. > > > > Invented by American computer scientists during the 1970s, the Internet has > been embraced around the globe. During the network's first three decades, > most Internet traffic flowed through the United States. In many cases, data > sent between two locations within a given country also passed through the > United States. > > > > Engineers who help run the Internet said that it would have been impossible > for the United States to maintain its hegemony over the long run because of > the very nature of the Internet; it has no central point of control. > > > > And now, the balance of power is shifting. Data is increasingly flowing > around the United States, which may have intelligence — and conceivably > military — consequences. > > > > American intelligence officials have warned about this shift. "Because of > the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing with a tremendous > home-field advantage, and we need to exploit that edge," > > Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, > testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006. "We also need to > protect that edge, and we need to protect those who provide it to us." > > > > Indeed, Internet industry executives and government officials have > acknowledged that Internet traffic passing through the switching equipment > of companies based in the United States has proved a distinct advantage for > American intelligence agencies. In December 2005, The New York Times > reported that the National Security Agency had established a program with > the cooperation of American telecommunications firms that included the > interception of foreign Internet communications. > > > > Some Internet technologists and privacy advocates say those actions and > other government policies may be hastening the shift in Canadian and > European traffic away from the United States. > > > > "Since passage of the Patriot Act, many companies based outside of the > United States have been reluctant to store client information in the U.S.," > said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy > Information Center in Washington. "There is an ongoing concern that U.S. > > intelligence agencies will gather this information without legal process. > There is particular sensitivity about access to financial information as > well as communications and Internet traffic that goes through U.S. > switches." > > > > But economics also plays a role. Almost all nations see data networks as > essential to economic development. "It's no different than any other > infrastructure that a country needs," said K C Claffy, a research scientist > at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis in San Diego. "You > wouldn't want someone owning your roads either." > > > > Indeed, more countries are becoming aware of how their dependence on other > countries for their Internet traffic makes them vulnerable. > > Because of tariffs, pricing anomalies and even corporate cultures, Internet > providers will often not exchange data with their local competitors. They > prefer instead to send and receive traffic with larger international > Internet service providers. > > > > This leads to odd routing arrangements, referred to as tromboning, in which > traffic between two cites in one country will flow through other nations. In > January, when a cable was cut in the Mediterranean, Egyptian Internet > traffic was nearly paralyzed because it was not being shared by local > I.S.P.'s but instead was routed through European operators. > > > > The issue was driven home this month when hackers attacked and immobilized > several Georgian government Web sites during the country's fighting with > Russia. Most of Georgia's access to the global network flowed through Russia > and Turkey. A third route through an undersea cable linking Georgia to > Bulgaria is scheduled for completion in September. > > > > Ms. Claffy said that the shift away from the United States was not limited > to developing countries. The Japanese "are on a rampage to build out across > India and China so they have alternative routes and so they don't have to > route through the U.S." > > > > Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota who tracks > the growth of the global Internet, added, "We discovered the Internet, but > we couldn't keep it a secret." While the United States carried 70 percent of > the world's Internet traffic a decade ago, he estimates that portion has > fallen to about 25 percent. > > > > Internet technologists say that the global data network that was once a > competitive advantage for the United States is now increasingly outside the > control of American companies. They decided not to invest in lower-cost > optical fiber lines, which have rapidly become a commodity business. > > > > That lack of investment mirrors a pattern that has taken place elsewhere in > the high-technology industry, from semiconductors to personal computers. > > > > The risk, Internet technologists say, is that upstarts like China and India > are making larger investments in next-generation Internet technology that is > likely to be crucial in determining the future of the network, with > investment, innovation and profits going first to overseas companies. > > > > "Whether it's a good or a bad thing depends on where you stand," said Vint > Cerf, a computer scientist who is Google's Internet evangelist and who, with > Robert Kahn, devised the original Internet routing protocols in the early > 1970s. "Suppose the Internet was entirely confined to the U.S., which it > once was? That wasn't helpful." > > > > International networks that carry data into and out of the United States > are still being expanded at a sharp rate, but the Internet infrastructure in > many other regions of the world is growing even more quickly. > > > > While there has been some concern over a looming Internet traffic jam > because of the rise in Internet use worldwide, the congestion is generally > not on the Internet's main trunk lines, but on neighborhood switches, > routers and the wires into a house. > > > > As Internet traffic moves offshore, it may complicate the task of American > intelligence gathering agencies, but would not make Internet surveillance > impossible. > > > > "We're probably in one of those situations where things get a little bit > harder," said John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in > Monterey, Calif., who said the United States had invested far too little in > collecting intelligence via the Internet. "We've given terrorists a free > ride in cyberspace," he said. > > > > Others say the eclipse of the United States as the central point in > cyberspace is one of many indicators that the world is becoming a more level > playing field both economically and politically. > > > > "This is one of many dimensions on which we'll have to adjust to a > reduction in American ability to dictate terms of core interests of ours," > said Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and > Society at Harvard. "We are, by comparison, militarily weaker, economically > poorer and technologically less unique than we were then. We are still a > very big player, but not in control." > > > > China, for instance, surpassed the United States in the number of Internet > users in June. Over all, Asia now has 578.5 million, or 39.5 percent, of the > world's Internet users, although only 15.3 percent of the Asian population > is connected to the Internet, according to Internet World Stats, a market > research organization. > > > > By contrast, there were about 237 million Internet users in North America > and the growth has nearly peaked; penetration of the Internet in the region > has reached about 71 percent. > > > > The increasing role of new competitors has shown up in data collected > annually by Renesys, a firm in Manchester, N.H., that monitors the > connections between Internet providers. The Renesys rankings of Internet > connections, an indirect measure of growth, show that the big winners in the > last three years have been the Italian Internet provider Tiscali, China > Telecom and the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI. > > > > Firms that have slipped in the rankings have all been American: Verizon, > Savvis, AT&T, Qwest, Cogent and AboveNet. > > > > "The U.S. telecommunications firms haven't invested," said Earl Zmijewski, > vice president and general manager for Internet data services at Renesys. > "The rest of the world has caught up. I don't see the AT&T's and Sprints > making the investments because they see Internet service as a commodity." > > > > Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company > > > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sun Aug 31 05:25:24 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:25:24 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Tapani, I have sent a request for an answer to the DAISY Consortium and I will forward the reply then I receive it. I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have exceptions but not any international exceptions. The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is intellectual properties mentioned which should not constitute limitation for PWD. But CRPD apply only to countries that have ratified the convention. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Skickat: den 28 augusti 2008 20:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > if some legal requirement is needed for DAISY Consortium in order to > provide digital books for persons with print disabilities, I am sure > they have done it as DAISY is such a huge spared format for reading in > the world today amongst us who need this format! They probably either have made some kind of deal with patent holders, possibly royalty-free license that covers their use, or they're relying on their non-commercial nature (patents only restrict commercial use, as noted). Also, in copyright legislation there are certain legal exemptions for people with disabilities; I don't know of such in patent legislation, but there might be some that are relevant here. > I think I will get in touch with DAISY consortium and ask them of how > they manage to use MP3 and not valuate intellectual properties! If you do, I for one would be interested in hearing what they reply. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 07:46:10 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:46:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S References: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <48B93301.E5FC65FF@ix.netcom.com> Sivasubramanian, Sorry to read that you feel that my response was "Propagandizing" in any way. But yes I do believe that some government entity needs to be or act as a regulator at some level. An Internet that has no controlling authority that has enforcement powers is an Internet that will become nearly useless for ecommerce, or non-commercial use in any viable sense. Kaos cannot be a reasonable alternative as you seem to be suggesting. Self governance has never for any length of time, shown to be effective as a means of governing anything of any international or in any instance I know of, on a national basis or scope. I am sure some would prefer that some UN organization such as the ITU be put in charge of the Internet. Such would be a horror of monumental proportions as UN organizations have for several decades shown clearly unable to manage anything of an consequence, including their own budget, which still the US provides 70% of. This is also the predominant view of the vast majority of our members as well, BTW and most of which are not US citizens... We don't want to hoist yet another "Oil for food program" fraud upon the greater good or all the worlds citizens... So though cooperation has between LEA's and other governmental entities has been far less than good, intergovernmental cooperation with the US and vice versa, is paramount lest miscreants, malcontents, fraudsters, and terrorists remain able to loose their havoc upon good and honest stakeholders/users in whatever country them may reside. Ergo everyone should be able to access and use the internet with confidence that their privacy and safety will not be compromised unwittingly nor their private correspondence or interaction be spied upon by anyone regardless of their status. Nor should our use in whatever form or manner be collected, sold or used for purposes it was never intended for as some ecommerce organizations and corporations have clearly done and are doing. As Vint Cerf once uttered, "the Internet is for everyone"! It is not for abusing by anyone or ANY entity, IMO. We all know whom some of the abusers are, and yet there are some that are abusers that are not so obvious to determine or detect. It is here that LEA's and all of us should work in concert to thwart or otherwise deal with lest we further cripple the goose that lays the golden eggs... When we notice such abusers, or are attempted to be solicited to become victims of these not so obvious abusers, we must take the initiative and report them to our available LEA's accordingly AND additionally follow up once reported with those LEA's that they are doing their job in pursuing such reports properly and diligently but do so without malice or prejudice of any sort, and do so insistently, persistently, and consistently.... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Parminder and All, > > The trends reported in the NY Times article point to the possibility > of the Internet becoming a level playing field. But can we afford to > assume that there would be a perfect balance? > > I would rather wonder where the next center for power would be. > China? Europe? Japan? > > History shows several instances of one imbalanced replaced by yet > another kind of imbalance in the process of the intended act of > balancing. > > On the Internet what next ? > > As far Jeffrey's response, I have a feeling that the Security Concerns > are usually exaggerated or even propagandized to make it easy to argue > that the Internet needs to be controlled and regulated. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > ISOC India Chennai. > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jeffrey A. > Williams wrote: > > Parminder and all, > > Yes the New York Times and slasdot also have been carrying > a similar story. > > (see below my remarks )... > > I wrote both of my senators and congressmen about this > expressing my > > and our members concerns and questions regarding this > "Event" which > > was of course expected or should have been. We in the US > are still > > very concerned or paranoid, depending on your point of view, > of > > terrorism, fraud, and abuse of various sorts from within and > from > > without our own boarders. The level of concern seems to > some > > us citizens, justified, and to others not justified. > > Given the number of phishing scam Email I have received > and > > immediately reported yet have seen no apparent action upon, > > and the amount of "Child Porn" spamming I have also received > > with seemingly just as little recognizable *Proper* if any > action > > upon, I am puzzled as to what the broader justification is > or > > may be for the recent passed legislation/laws both state and > federal > > that has actually aided in any significant way that citizens > reporting > > themselves could not have otherwise achieved within > previously > > existing law. Yet I remain steadfast in favor of once > establishing > > whom these perps are of may be to be sought out and dealt > with > > accordingly. Problem is how does one accurately define whom > > such sorts of perps be positively identified if originating > outside > > my own country and without much better cooperation of non-US > > LEA's accordingly. A real circular conundrum indeed! > > See: > > New York Times story about how internet > traffic is > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/business/30pipes.html > increasingly flowing around the US as web-based industries > catch up in other parts of the world. Other issues, such as > > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/24/1959201&tid=217 > the > Patriot Act, have made foreign companies wary about having > their data on > > US servers. From the NYTimes: "Internet industry executives > and > > government officials have acknowledged that Internet traffic > passing > through the switching equipment of companies based in the > United States > has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence > agencies. In > December 2005, The New York Times reported that the National > Security > Agency had established a program with the cooperation of > American > telecommunications firms that included the interception of > foreign > Internet communications. Some Internet technologists and > privacy > advocates say those actions and other government policies > may be > hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away > from the > United States." > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder > Sent: Aug 31, 2008 2:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to > Bypass the U.S > > Thought will be useful to the list. Parminder > > Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S. By JOHN > MARKOFF > > SAN FRANCISCO — The era of the American Internet > is ending. > > Invented by American computer scientists during > the 1970s, the Internet has been embraced around > the globe. During the network's first three > decades, most Internet traffic flowed through the > United States. In many cases, data sent between > two locations within a given country also passed > through the United States. > > Engineers who help run the Internet said that it > would have been impossible for the United States > to maintain its hegemony over the long run because > of the very nature of the Internet; it has no > central point of control. > > And now, the balance of power is shifting. Data is > increasingly flowing around the United States, > which may have intelligence — and conceivably > military — consequences. > > American intelligence officials have warned about > this shift. "Because of the nature of global > telecommunications, we are playing with a > tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to > exploit that edge," > > Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central > Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate > Judiciary Committee in 2006. "We also need to > protect that edge, and we need to protect those > who provide it to us." > > Indeed, Internet industry executives and > government officials have acknowledged that > Internet traffic passing through the switching > equipment of companies based in the United States > has proved a distinct advantage for American > intelligence agencies. In December 2005, The New > York Times reported that the National Security > Agency had established a program with the > cooperation of American telecommunications firms > that included the interception of foreign Internet > communications. > > Some Internet technologists and privacy advocates > say those actions and other government policies > may be hastening the shift in Canadian and > European traffic away from the United States. > > "Since passage of the Patriot Act, many companies > based outside of the United States have been > reluctant to store client information in the > U.S.," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of > the Electronic Privacy Information Center in > Washington. "There is an ongoing concern that > U.S. > > intelligence agencies will gather this information > without legal process. There is particular > sensitivity about access to financial information > as well as communications and Internet traffic > that goes through U.S. switches." > > But economics also plays a role. Almost all > nations see data networks as essential to economic > development. "It's no different than any other > infrastructure that a country needs," said K C > Claffy, a research scientist at the Cooperative > Association for Internet Data Analysis in San > Diego. "You wouldn't want someone owning your > roads either." > > Indeed, more countries are becoming aware of how > their dependence on other countries for their > Internet traffic makes them vulnerable. > > Because of tariffs, pricing anomalies and even > corporate cultures, Internet providers will often > not exchange data with their local competitors. > They prefer instead to send and receive traffic > with larger international Internet service > providers. > > This leads to odd routing arrangements, referred > to as tromboning, in which traffic between two > cites in one country will flow through other > nations. In January, when a cable was cut in the > Mediterranean, Egyptian Internet traffic was > nearly paralyzed because it was not being shared > by local I.S.P.'s but instead was routed through > European operators. > > The issue was driven home this month when hackers > attacked and immobilized several Georgian > government Web sites during the country's fighting > with Russia. Most of Georgia's access to the > global network flowed through Russia and Turkey. A > third route through an undersea cable linking > Georgia to Bulgaria is scheduled for completion in > September. > > Ms. Claffy said that the shift away from the > United States was not limited to developing > countries. The Japanese "are on a rampage to build > out across India and China so they have > alternative routes and so they don't have to route > through the U.S." > > Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University > of Minnesota who tracks the growth of the global > Internet, added, "We discovered the Internet, but > we couldn't keep it a secret." While the United > States carried 70 percent of the world's Internet > traffic a decade ago, he estimates that portion > has fallen to about 25 percent. > > Internet technologists say that the global data > network that was once a competitive advantage for > the United States is now increasingly outside the > control of American companies. They decided not to > invest in lower-cost optical fiber lines, which > have rapidly become a commodity business. > > That lack of investment mirrors a pattern that has > taken place elsewhere in the high-technology > industry, from semiconductors to personal > computers. > > The risk, Internet technologists say, is that > upstarts like China and India are making larger > investments in next-generation Internet technology > that is likely to be crucial in determining the > future of the network, with investment, innovation > and profits going first to overseas companies. > > "Whether it's a good or a bad thing depends on > where you stand," said Vint Cerf, a computer > scientist who is Google's Internet evangelist and > who, with Robert Kahn, devised the original > Internet routing protocols in the early 1970s. > "Suppose the Internet was entirely confined to the > U.S., which it once was? That wasn't helpful." > > International networks that carry data into and > out of the United States are still being expanded > at a sharp rate, but the Internet infrastructure > in many other regions of the world is growing even > more quickly. > > While there has been some concern over a looming > Internet traffic jam because of the rise in > Internet use worldwide, the congestion is > generally not on the Internet's main trunk lines, > but on neighborhood switches, routers and the > wires into a house. > > As Internet traffic moves offshore, it may > complicate the task of American intelligence > gathering agencies, but would not make Internet > surveillance impossible. > > "We're probably in one of those situations where > things get a little bit harder," said John > Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate > School in Monterey, Calif., who said the United > States had invested far too little in collecting > intelligence via the Internet. "We've given > terrorists a free ride in cyberspace," he said. > > Others say the eclipse of the United States as the > central point in cyberspace is one of many > indicators that the world is becoming a more level > playing field both economically and politically. > > "This is one of many dimensions on which we'll > have to adjust to a reduction in American ability > to dictate terms of core interests of ours," said > Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center > for Internet and Society at Harvard. "We are, by > comparison, militarily weaker, economically poorer > and technologically less unique than we were then. > We are still a very big player, but not in > control." > > China, for instance, surpassed the United States > in the number of Internet users in June. Over all, > Asia now has 578.5 million, or 39.5 percent, of > the world's Internet users, although only 15.3 > percent of the Asian population is connected to > the Internet, according to Internet World Stats, a > market research organization. > > By contrast, there were about 237 million Internet > users in North America and the growth has nearly > peaked; penetration of the Internet in the region > has reached about 71 percent. > > The increasing role of new competitors has shown > up in data collected annually by Renesys, a firm > in Manchester, N.H., that monitors the connections > between Internet providers. The Renesys rankings > of Internet connections, an indirect measure of > growth, show that the big winners in the last > three years have been the Italian Internet > provider Tiscali, China Telecom and the Japanese > telecommunications operator KDDI. > > Firms that have slipped in the rankings have all > been American: Verizon, Savvis, AT&T, Qwest, > Cogent and AboveNet. > > "The U.S. telecommunications firms haven't > invested," said Earl Zmijewski, vice president and > general manager for Internet data services at > Renesys. "The rest of the world has caught up. I > don't see the AT&T's and Sprints making the > investments because they see Internet service as a > commodity." > > Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and > not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore > Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; > and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L > multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d > Cir. 1947] > > ============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network > data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 > E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 31 06:10:21 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:10:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <48B8B4EC.579E3775 at ix.netcom.com>, at 19:48:13 on Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > I am afraid and disappointed now that dealing with adult content >or web sites whose theme is adult content, is in the hands of the >FCC, DOC/NTIA, and perhaps, the US supreme court. It seems to me that you want to regulate (certain) businesses. In the same way that casinos and liquor stores are regulated. Who would act if an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main street? Who decides if slot machines are illegal in your airport departure lounge (and by what mechanism did Las Vegas decide differently)? Probably not IATA or even FAA. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 31 07:55:57 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:55:57 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <005b01c90b36$75b4c310$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Probably should work with your draft Michael as I am not a subject matter expert here. But I would make the point that it takes eight or so paragraphs to get to the point of the submission and what you are trying to achieve. I think you might be losing readers before you make your point. That could also account for the very limited feedback on this list. I think we need to be more succinct which was the basis of my suggestion. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 31 August 2008 16:55 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > Ian and all, > > I've done an edit for clarity etc. of Parminder's original as attached. > > I haven't included your changes. > > (I think that we should be working with a wiki here... > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: August 30, 2008 11:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > Just some quick feedback here as it is important to keep this moving. > > I think it is too long and takes too long to get to the point. I would > drop > the four paragraphs after the first one and get straight into the > proposal. > My amended text then would be as follows. > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives > > in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of > > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > STUFF DELETED HERE RESUMES BELOW> > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional > > frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was > > identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on > > this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill > > of Rights to the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered > > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help > > operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the > > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned > by > > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from > > citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception > > covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the > > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that > > best serve public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented > > > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it > > may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for > > this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all > > IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does > > the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > > context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. > > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand > > the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > > digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on > > > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's > > nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more > > that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many > > or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and > > conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should > > start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are > > being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently > > in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards > > developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of > > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad > > on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. > > > > > > > > Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can > > build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very different > > starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a working > > group. > > > > > > > > The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and > > positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth > > such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good > > 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The > > draft is done with this context in mind. > > > > > > > > The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', and > > > we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic Coalition > > of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, > > shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. > > > > > > > > It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. > > There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing > > the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. > > > > > > > > The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do agree > > > on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process > > after finalizing the text. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at > > Cairo > > > > > > > > Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its > > constituent civil society > > > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives > > in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization of > > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > > > IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to > global > > Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On > > one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong > > global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more > > social institutions, and on the other hand, global political > > structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to > > be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and > > public-interest centered Internet policies. > > > > > > > > In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions > for > > policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help to > > first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin these > > polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that are > > engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. > > > > > > > > Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. > > Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have > > been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code > > of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other > > initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' > > of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic > > governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. > > > > > > > > It is however equally important to evolve some substantive > > 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet > > policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a > > 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an > > information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the > > centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their > > specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the > > information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human > > rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based > > conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging > > situations. > > > > > > > > It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global polity, > > > to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human rights. > > This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet policy > > institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. The > > WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong reaffirmation > > of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging information > > society. > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new institutional > > frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of which was > > identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on > > this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill > > of Rights to the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered > > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help > > operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' as the > > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned > by > > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from > > citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception > > covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the > > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that > > best serve public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives unprecedented > > > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it > > may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for > > this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme for all > > IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what does > > the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > > context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. > > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand > > the term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > > digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, on > > > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on Internet's > > nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming much more > > that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central to many > > or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis and > > conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should > > start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are > > being planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently > > in the main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards > > developing 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of > > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [1] To quote some existing initiatives here > > > > [2] Mentioned in TA > > > > [3] Mentioned in TA > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > > 8/9/2008 1:22 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 10:02:54 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:32:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S In-Reply-To: <48B93301.E5FC65FF@ix.netcom.com> References: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <48B93301.E5FC65FF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Sivasubramanian, > > Sorry to read that you feel that my response was "Propagandizing" > in any way. No, this was not a comment about your response. It was about what the general tendency on the part of Security Agencies and Government and proponents of Control to exaggerate the Security Concerns that happen to be real. You are mistaken because I referred to this by saying "As far Jeffrey's response" . I was referring to the content of your views but not at all implying that YOU are propagandizing... My response was on the issue, not on the person, would never be. This is a quick response. I need to come back to the message with some more comments on the content. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 31 10:55:59 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:55:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights & the Internet: Synthe... Message-ID: <00163645923c4795280455c2af63@google.com> I've shared a document with you called "Rights & the Internet: Synthesis Paper": http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&invite=f83hm3s It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above. --- I have created a shareable Google Document with my edit of Parminder's draft. with this I am giving permission for the entire list to "view" the document. with another note I will invite Ian and Parminder to "collaborate" on the document i.e. be able to edit it online. "Collaborators" are able to invite others to edit the document so those who wish to have input into editing this document should contact either Ian, Parminder or myself. (I'm travelling as of Monday night Vancouver time and I'll be in the air most of the next 24 hours so those looking to become collaborators should either contact me directly or if after Monday evening contact Ian or Parminder. This is the first time I've tried to do this with an entire list so I'm not exactly sure how it is going to work out but it will I think be better to try to do it this way than to do any form of collaborative editing on an open elist. Best, MG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 31 11:32:19 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:32:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Ian and all, Just to clarify, my edit was simply for clarity, style and grammar (I edit an online journal and I more or less automatically do that as I'm reading so I thought I would do it in earnest for Parminder's doc. And my sending it out when I did was not meant to be a comment on Ian's substantive changes but just to provide an edited base document for us to work with substantively as per the Google Doc I've just now created. MG -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: August 31, 2008 4:56 AM To: 'Michael Gurstein'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Probably should work with your draft Michael as I am not a subject matter expert here. But I would make the point that it takes eight or so paragraphs to get to the point of the submission and what you are trying to achieve. I think you might be losing readers before you make your point. That could also account for the very limited feedback on this list. I think we need to be more succinct which was the basis of my suggestion. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 31 August 2008 16:55 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > Ian and all, > > I've done an edit for clarity etc. of Parminder's original as > attached. > > I haven't included your changes. > > (I think that we should be working with a wiki here... > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: August 30, 2008 11:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > Just some quick feedback here as it is important to keep this moving. > > I think it is too long and takes too long to get to the point. I would > drop the four paragraphs after the first one and get straight into the > proposal. > My amended text then would be as follows. > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards > > "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity > > and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil > > society contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > STUFF DELETED HERE RESUMES BELOW> > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter > > on this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet > > Bill of Rights to the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered > > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to > > help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' > > as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned > by > > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information > > is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks > > at any 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information > > from citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based > > conception covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the > > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies > > that best serve public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > > unprecedented > > > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, > > it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is > > for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore > > what does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more > > globalized, context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. > > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political > > economy contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP > > right a 'real' right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as > > we understand the term 'rights'? What public interest principles > > much underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the > > significance of further developing the concept of a right to access > > knowledge, in the digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, > > on > > > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet > > becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, > > and central to many or most social and political institutions, an > > alternative basis and conceptual framework for IG needs to be > > explored. In the view of the Caucus a right-based framework will be > > most appropriate to be so explored and used. It is the also Caucus's > > view that the IGF is the institution best placed to take up this > > task. This process should start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some > > workshops on 'rights issues' are being planned, and these issues > > will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. These > > discussions will help IGF work towards developing 'rights and the > > Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad > > on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the IGF'. > > > > > > > > Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We can > > build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very > > different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a > > working group. > > > > > > > > The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and > > positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth > > such ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a > > good 'space' through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. > > The draft is done with this context in mind. > > > > > > > > The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', > > and > > > we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic > > Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try > > another, shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. > > > > > > > > It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and inputs. > > There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in capturing > > the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. > > > > > > > > The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do > > agree > > > on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus process > > after finalizing the text. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at > > Cairo > > > > > > > > Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and its > > constituent civil society > > > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society > > organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards > > "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity > > and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil > > society contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > > > IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to > global > > Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. On > > one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong > > global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more > > social institutions, and on the other hand, global political > > structures are, very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable > > to be up to the challenge of effectively making democratic and > > public-interest centered Internet policies. > > > > > > > > In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate institutions > for > > policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, it may help > > to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must underpin > > these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions that > > are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. > > > > > > > > Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. > > Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have > > been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a > > code of conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some > > other initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' > > of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic > > governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. > > > > > > > > It is however equally important to evolve some substantive > > 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet > > policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for > > a 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct > > such an information society is to proceed from placing people's > > rights at the centre, in a manner that includes all people of the > > world in their specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples > > rights in the information society' will consist in contextualizing > > existing human rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new > > rights-based conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and > > emerging situations. > > > > > > > > It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global > > polity, > > > to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human > > rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet > > policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the > > Internet'. The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a > > strong reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the > > emerging information society. > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet policy > > making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse regarding > > the Internet and the information society. The ideas and principles > > emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions that > > actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends that > > 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for IGF-4 > > in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet > > Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter > > on this subject which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet > > Bill of Rights to the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > people-centered > > 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and specifically to > > help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and the Internet' > > as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are underpinned > by > > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is > > increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > > positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right > > to the Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to > > collective rights like cultural rights, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > > being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information > > is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks > > at any 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information > > from citizens as a form of censorship. All these rights-based > > conception covers the IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the > > Internet age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies > > that best serve public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > > unprecedented > > > new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, > > it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is > > for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore > > what does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more > > globalized, context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they > > pay for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their > > digital arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, > > in a manner largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > right. > > However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political > > economy contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP > > right a 'real' right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as > > we understand the term 'rights'? What public interest principles > > much underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the > > significance of further developing the concept of a right to access > > knowledge, in the digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, initially, > > on > > > technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet > > becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, > > and central to many or most social and political institutions, an > > alternative basis and conceptual framework for IG needs to be > > explored. In the view of the Caucus a right-based framework will be > > most appropriate to be so explored and used. It is the also Caucus's > > view that the IGF is the institution best placed to take up this > > task. This process should start in IGF, Hyderabad, where some > > workshops on 'rights issues' are being planned, and these issues > > will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. These > > discussions will help IGF work towards developing 'rights and the > > Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [1] To quote some existing initiatives here > > > > [2] Mentioned in TA > > > > [3] Mentioned in TA > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > > 8/9/2008 1:22 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > 8/9/2008 1:22 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 13:58:39 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:58:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: I'm interested in seeing the Google docs format used this way. I found it easy to read through and we will all be able to see edits. A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. More stylistic, I wonder about substituting 'foundational' for 'constitutional'. The former seems to me more flexible and inclusive, the latter stricter and more formal. For rights, I am thinking about overarching or underpinning rights, which then become implemented in constitutions and laws and standards and ... Cornerstone rights would also work for me. Please note that I am reading/writing with an American English mind/brain, and how I react to terms may not be how others understand the words. I too prefer shorter interventions. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 13:58:31 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:58:31 -0600 Subject: [governance] Rights & the Internet: Synthe... In-Reply-To: <00163645923c4795280455c2af63@google.com> References: <00163645923c4795280455c2af63@google.com> Message-ID: Dear MG, Very good start!, and thanks for letting others collaborate. Here are my 2 cents: 1. REFERENCES: Consider including in the text references to countries that already have *specific *Internet Rights (Germany) or are in process to have them (Costa Rica). 2. ALL in 4?: Consider resuming all the rights in 4: Existence (includes access), Presence, Content (includes privacy), Projection. Best regards, Jaco On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:55 AM, gurstein at gmail.com wrote: > I've shared a document with you called "Rights & the Internet: Synthesis > Paper": > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&invite=f83hm3s > > It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this > document, just click the link above. > --- > > I have created a shareable Google Document with my edit of Parminder's > draft. > > with this I am giving permission for the entire list to "view" the > document. > > with another note I will invite Ian and Parminder to "collaborate" on the > document i.e. be able to edit it online. > > "Collaborators" are able to invite others to edit the document so those who > wish to have input into editing this document should contact either Ian, > Parminder or myself. (I'm travelling as of Monday night Vancouver time and > I'll be in the air most of the next 24 hours so those looking to become > collaborators should either contact me directly or if after Monday evening > contact Ian or Parminder. > > This is the first time I've tried to do this with an entire list so I'm not > exactly sure how it is going to work out but it will I think be better to > try to do it this way than to do any form of collaborative editing on an > open elist. > > Best, > > 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 > > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Aug 31 15:13:42 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:13:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <010901c90b9d$c82ad0f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> I've invited you Sylvia and Jaco, to be "collaborators" on the document and to enter in your own changes. Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] Sent: August 31, 2008 10:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper I'm interested in seeing the Google docs format used this way. I found it easy to read through and we will all be able to see edits. A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. More stylistic, I wonder about substituting 'foundational' for 'constitutional'. The former seems to me more flexible and inclusive, the latter stricter and more formal. For rights, I am thinking about overarching or underpinning rights, which then become implemented in constitutions and laws and standards and ... Cornerstone rights would also work for me. Please note that I am reading/writing with an American English mind/brain, and how I react to terms may not be how others understand the words. I too prefer shorter interventions. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Aug 31 15:29:53 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:29:53 +0300 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning > persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions > and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have > exceptions but not any international exceptions. I guess it depends on how you define "international", but at least European Union laws have such exceptions, notably in EU Copyright Directive. > The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the > rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is > intellectual properties mentioned which should not constitute > limitation for PWD. But CRPD apply only to countries that have > ratified the convention. There's probably nothing that applies to all countries, I'm afraid. :-( -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sun Aug 31 16:03:35 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:03:35 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285DA18@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Tapani, There is no difference in interpreting international laws, that is interpreted by OHCHR in Geneva through its all implementations and monitoring committees! International Human Rights Laws are all interpreted in the same way (or principles should be)! It has not to depend on how you define what is "international", it is already define and established in the Paris Principe! So the question is not about the international or laws but rather a common understanding by bilateral or multilateral agreements Yours Kicki agreement Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Skickat: den 31 augusti 2008 21:30 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Kicki Nordström (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning > persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions > and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have > exceptions but not any international exceptions. I guess it depends on how you define "international", but at least European Union laws have such exceptions, notably in EU Copyright Directive. > The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the rights > of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is intellectual > properties mentioned which should not constitute limitation for PWD. > But CRPD apply only to countries that have ratified the convention. There's probably nothing that applies to all countries, I'm afraid. :-( -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sun Aug 31 17:06:46 2008 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (zara) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <3530.24.156.158.46.1220216806.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> For detailed information and analysis on the issue of copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities, I would suggest reading (or, at 233 pages, trying to anyway) WIPO's "Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired" : As the executive summary indicates, "The framework in international treaties and conventions relating to intellectual property seems to permit exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people. Indeed, exceptions seem possible with respect to a wide range of acts restricted by copyright that might be undertaken by those making and supplying accessible copies to visually impaired people. However, the possibility of such provision is not specifically addressed and is not mandatory under these treaties and conventions, although it is widely accepted that copyright laws should provide a balance between the interests of different stakeholders. Also, especially where several different treaties and conventions need to be considered, the conditions that might apply to exceptions is quite complicated and there may be some doubt regarding exceptions to the adaptation right in particular. In examining exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people in national laws, 57 countries have been found that have specific provisions that would permit activity to assist visually impaired people unable to access the written word, or to assist people with a print disability more generally, by making a copyright work available to them in an accessible form. Some of the exceptions found in these countries would also permit other types of assistance for handicapped people, and two further countries have been found that have exceptions that would permit, amongst other things, audio description of broadcasts. It has not been possible in this Study to consider to what extent exceptions of other types would permit activity for the benefit of visually impaired people, such as exceptions permitting private copying, use of copyright works for educational purposes and those applying to activity in or by libraries,. But it seems unlikely that such exceptions would provide a comprehensive solution to the legitimate needs of visually impaired people unable because of copyright constraints to access the written word." And from what I understand, WIPO is considering addressing the issue further in its next agenda. Of course, many rights holders would prefer that international treaties and national legislation not contain copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities as the problem of access for this population would, according to them, reside in the cost for re-formatting and that reduction in cost can only be achieved through cooperation with rights holders. Additionally, there are of course concerns about abuse and piracy. Finally, with the development of electronic formats and access tools for persons with disabilities, many feel that copyright exceptions would become moot as technology evolves. Personally, considering how far behind ICT accessibility is, I will not hold my breathe on that. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Sun, August 31, 2008 3:29 pm, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Kicki Nordström > (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > >> I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning >> persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions >> and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have >> exceptions but not any international exceptions. > > I guess it depends on how you define "international", but at least > European Union laws have such exceptions, notably in EU Copyright > Directive. > >> The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the >> rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is >> intellectual properties mentioned which should not constitute >> limitation for PWD. But CRPD apply only to countries that have >> ratified the convention. > > There's probably nothing that applies to all countries, I'm afraid. :-( > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 20:35:35 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:35:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, My response is interspersed below... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48B8B4EC.579E3775 at ix.netcom.com>, at 19:48:13 on Fri, 29 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > I am afraid and disappointed now that dealing with adult content > >or web sites whose theme is adult content, is in the hands of the > >FCC, DOC/NTIA, and perhaps, the US supreme court. > > It seems to me that you want to regulate (certain) businesses. In the > same way that casinos and liquor stores are regulated. Who would act if > an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main street? The city council would shut it down, I can assure you IF it ever was to receive a business license to open such a business in the first place. Yet personally, I have no problem with Internet gambling, although it needs to be properly provided for, and therefore regulated to some degree. The question is as an Internet Right, can this be effected on a global basis and enforceable accordingly and effectively? I believe the answer is yes, but it would be advisable if not necessary that a government entity in each country have the necessary enforcement authority to effect such. BTW, "strip clubs", ect. are not normally considered "Pornographic", and certainly are not considered harbingers of "Child Porn" pre se. Ergo arguments in of such are spacious at best... > > > Who decides if slot machines are illegal in your airport departure > lounge (and by what mechanism did Las Vegas decide differently)? > Probably not IATA or even FAA. Certain types of gambling licenses are legal in the state of texas under certain limited conditions based mostly on zoning. The mechanism in Las Vegas I believe but do not know for a certainty, was by public passing in the state of Nevada to determine what sort of gambling they wanted by voting upon such accordingly. Certainly the IATA nor the FAA are necessarily directly involved in such decisions, but in the case of airport slot machines they (FAA) likely followed state law. This is proper and in accordance with most public determination. If for instance a referendum ballot was brought forward, which has been done in Texas on several occasions regarding gambling licenses and several passed, than that form of gambling under the restrictions of those licenses governed by state law are allowed. So no, I am not for government regulation on a broad scale. I do believe that some limited regulation is or may be advisable and possibly even necessary for the greater good. But such IMO, should be determined by referendum vote by the governed. > > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 20:38:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:38:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S References: <27067837.1220168182725.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <48B93301.E5FC65FF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48B9E804.A5FF4120@ix.netcom.com> Sivasubramanian and all, Ok. I await impatiently for your more in depth response... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Jeffrey A. > Williams wrote: > > Sivasubramanian, > > Sorry to read that you feel that my response was > "Propagandizing" > in any way. > > > No, this was not a comment about your response. It was about what the > general tendency on the part of Security Agencies and Government and > proponents of Control to exaggerate the Security Concerns that happen > to be real. > > You are mistaken because I referred to this by saying "As far > Jeffrey's response" . I was referring to the content of your views but > not at all implying that YOU are propagandizing... > > My response was on the issue, not on the person, would never be. > > This is a quick response. I need to come back to the message with some > more comments on the content. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 20:40:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:40:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights & the Internet: Synthe... References: <00163645923c4795280455c2af63@google.com> Message-ID: <48B9E868.332D2D8A@ix.netcom.com> Jaco and all, Agreed. Detailed rights would be improtant... Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Dear MG, > > Very good start!, and thanks for letting others collaborate. Here are > my 2 cents: > > 1. REFERENCES: Consider including in the text references to countries > that already have specific Internet Rights (Germany) or are in process > to have them (Costa Rica). > > > 2. ALL in 4?: Consider resuming all the rights in 4: Existence > (includes access), Presence, Content (includes privacy), Projection. > > Best regards, > > Jaco > > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:55 AM, > gurstein at gmail.com wrote: > > I've shared a document with you called "Rights & the > Internet: Synthesis Paper": > http://docs.google.com/Doc? > d=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&invite=f83hm3s > > It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. > To open this document, just click the link above. > --- > > I have created a shareable Google Document with my edit of > Parminder's draft. > > with this I am giving permission for the entire list to > "view" the document. > > with another note I will invite Ian and Parminder to > "collaborate" on the document i.e. be able to edit it > online. > > "Collaborators" are able to invite others to edit the > document so those who wish to have input into editing this > document should contact either Ian, Parminder or myself. > (I'm travelling as of Monday night Vancouver time and I'll > be in the air most of the next 24 hours so those looking to > become collaborators should either contact me directly or if > after Monday evening contact Ian or Parminder. > > This is the first time I've tried to do this with an entire > list so I'm not exactly sure how it is going to work out but > it will I think be better to try to do it this way than to > do any form of collaborative editing on an open elist. > > Best, > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Jaco Aizenman L. > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 20:41:44 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:41:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <48B9E8C8.E384ACAD@ix.netcom.com> Sylvia and all, Sorry but I refuse to use Google for anything or access any google.com link as they are purvayers of spam and often propagate phishing due to their miss configured DNS. Sylvia Caras wrote: > I'm interested in seeing the Google docs format used this way. I > found it easy to read through and we will all be able to see edits. > > A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to > capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet > technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into > ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. > > More stylistic, I wonder about substituting 'foundational' for > 'constitutional'. The former seems to me more flexible and inclusive, > the latter stricter and more formal. For rights, I am thinking about > overarching or underpinning rights, which then become implemented in > constitutions and laws and standards and ... Cornerstone rights would > also work for me. > > Please note that I am reading/writing with an American English > mind/brain, and how I react to terms may not be how others understand > the words. > > I too prefer shorter interventions. > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 30 20:50:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:50:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: Message-ID: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Very good start here... >:) Ian Peter wrote: > Just some quick feedback here as it is important to keep this moving. > > I think it is too long and takes too long to get to the point. I would drop > the four paragraphs after the first one and get straight into the proposal. > My amended text then would be as follows. > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil > > society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization > > of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > STUFF DELETED HERE RESUMES BELOW> > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet > > policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse > > regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and > > principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions > > that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends > > that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for > > IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. > > The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject > > which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to > > the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > > people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and > > specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and > > the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are > > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital > > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive > > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > > like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area > > of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, > > are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens > > as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the > > IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the Internet > > age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve > > public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > > unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many > > new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. > > It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what > > does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > > context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > > for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital > > arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner > > largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > > right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the > > term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > > digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, > > initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming > > much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central > > to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis > > and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start > > in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being > > planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the > > main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing > > 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > We had proposed IGC inputs to the synthesis paper for IGF > > Hyderabad on two topics - 'rights and the Internet' and 'review of the > > IGF'. > > > > > > > > Since no comments have come in, a draft is being proposed. We > > can build in comments and suggestions into it. However if a very > > different starting draft is found necessary we can do it through a > > working group. > > > > > > > > The synthesis paper is a place to put in substantive ideas and > > positions that we may want to present. Somewhat like putting forth such > > ideas/ positions at the IGF meeting itself. The paper is a good 'space' > > through which we can try to reach the IGF participants. The draft is > > done with this context in mind. > > > > > > > > The enclosed draft is on the issue of 'rights and the internet', > > and we acknowledge the work done, and being done, by the Dynamic > > Coalition of Internet Bill of Rights in this regard. I will try another, > > shorter, draft on the issue of 'review of the IGF' too. > > > > > > > > It is a very rough initial draft to trigger discussion and > > inputs. There must be a lot of gaps/ inconsistencies especially in > > capturing the rights ecology in relation to the Internet. > > > > > > > > The deadline for sending these in is 12th September. And if do > > agree on sending a contribution it has to be put through consensus > > process after finalizing the text. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, > > at Cairo > > > > > > > > Global internet policy making and Rights - Role of the IGF and > > its constituent civil society > > > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil > > society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest > > objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "realization > > of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > > development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > contributions in Internet governance processes". > > > > > > > > IGF has the principal mandate and challenge of contributing to > > global Internet policy making, which is beset with a formidable problem. > > On one hand, it is an important emerging policy area, with a strong > > global mooring, as the Internet becomes central to more and more social > > institutions, and on the other hand, global political structures are, > > very often, either too weak or otherwise unsuitable to be up to the > > challenge of effectively making democratic and public-interest centered > > Internet policies. > > > > > > > > In times when there is uncertainly about appropriate > > institutions for policy making, as in case of global Internet policies, > > it may help to first focus on 'constitutional' principles that must > > underpin these polices, and inform the activities of the institutions > > that are engaged in this activity - both extant, and emerging. > > > > > > > > Some of such 'constitutional' principles are related to process. > > Council of Europe and Association of Progressive Communications have > > been doing some important work in this regard on the issue of "a code of > > conduct for public participation in IG". There are also some other > > initiatives seeking to examine how (process related) 'WSIS principles' > > of mulitistakeholderism, transparency, participation and democratic > > governance can be applied in the extant IG institutions. > > > > > > > > It is however equally important to evolve some substantive > > 'constitutional' principles[1] that should inform global Internet > > policies, and the concerned institutional framework. WSIS called for a > > 'people-centric' information society, and the way to construct such an > > information society is to proceed from placing people's rights at the > > centre, in a manner that includes all people of the world in their > > specific social contexts. Framing of such 'peoples rights in the > > information society' will consist in contextualizing existing human > > rights to the Internet age, as well identifying new rights-based > > conceptualizations that are relevant to the new and emerging situations. > > > > > > > > It is relevant to note here that much of the existing global > > polity, to the extend it does exist, is based on globally agreed human > > rights. This provides a good precedent for basing a global Internet > > policy institutional framework on 'rights in relation to the Internet'. > > The WSIS Declaration of Principles also opens with a strong > > reaffirmation of human rights as the basis of shaping the emerging > > information society. > > > > > > > > IGF will make an important contribution to global Internet > > policy making if it picks up and drives a rights-based discourse > > regarding the Internet and the information society. The ideas and > > principles emerging from such a discourse can then inform institutions > > that actually make Internet policies, and the shaping of new > > institutional frameworks, that may be required, the possible need of > > which was identified by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus therefore strongly recommends > > that 'Rights and the Internet' be made as the overarching theme for > > IGF-4 in Egypt, and the IGF-4's program be dominated by the need for > > developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. > > The Caucus has already expressed support to the letter on this subject > > which was sent by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Bill of Rights to > > the MAG. > > > > > > > > IGC offers IGF all assistance in helping shape such a > > people-centered 'rights-based discourse' at the IGF meetings, and > > specifically to help operationalise the proposal of making 'rights and > > the Internet' as the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of 'rights and the Internet' > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are > > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital > > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of positive > > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > > like cultural rights, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area > > of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, > > are being framed in terms of rights, like a right to know, access > > information[2] and share information, including perhaps freedom of > > expression itself. Right to public information takes a wholly new > > context in a digital environment, where digital public information is > > publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One project looks at any > > 'positive acts' of withholding digital public information from citizens > > as a form of censorship. All these rights-based conception covers the > > IGF theme area of 'openness'. > > > > > > > > Many other rights like the right of association and the right of > > political participation have important new implications in the Internet > > age, including in terms of the kind of Internet policies that best serve > > public interest. > > > > > > > > It is a widely held fear that while the Internet gives > > unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many > > new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. > > It is for this reason that 'development' has always been a central theme > > for all IGF meetings. In this context, it may be useful to explore what > > does the 'right to development' mean in this new, much more globalized, > > context. > > > > > > > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and consumer's > > right[3] to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > > for is another important emerging area of rights. This has great > > relevance in a context where corporates are able to extend their digital > > arms of control inside people's houses and personal devices, in a manner > > largely unsuspected by the ordinary consumers. > > > > > > > > Right to property normally has been considered as an important > > right. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) > > mutations in the digital space, in form of IP rights is greatly > > contested. In fact, this contestation is the primary political economy > > contestation of the emerging information society. Is IP right a 'real' > > right? Are corporate entities entitled to 'rights' as we understand the > > term 'rights'? What public interest principles much underpin any > > conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of > > further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge, in the > > digital space? > > > > > > > > Internet governance till today has largely been based, > > initially, on technical principles of 'neutrality' and, increasingly, on > > Internet's nature as a giant global marketplace. With Internet becoming > > much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and central > > to many or most social and political institutions, an alternative basis > > and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. In the view of the > > Caucus a right-based framework will be most appropriate to be so > > explored and used. It is the also Caucus's view that the IGF is the > > institution best placed to take up this task. This process should start > > in IGF, Hyderabad, where some workshops on 'rights issues' are being > > planned, and these issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the > > main sessions. These discussions will help IGF work towards developing > > 'rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [1] To quote some existing initiatives here > > > > [2] Mentioned in TA > > > > [3] Mentioned in TA > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 31 04:33:50 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:33:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] European Court of Human Rights Will Not Prevent McKinnon's Extradition Message-ID: <48BA576E.EE207D35@ix.netcom.com> All, Now this demonstrates how well International human rights courts should work all the time... See: (August 28, 2008) The European Court of Human Rights has refused Gary McKinnon's appeal against extradition to the United States to face charges related to infiltrating US government computer networks. McKinnon claimed that the penalties he would face if he were tried in the US would constitute inhumane treatment. There is no higher court to which his attorneys can take his case, but they plan to take a new tack and appeal to the UK Home Secretary on the grounds that McKinnon suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9113702&source=rss_topic17 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7585861.stm Editors notes and comments: McKinnon should receive some kind of "drama queen" award. When all is said and done, he almost certainly will end up being extradicted to the US, where he is bound to serve prison time. Meanwhile, it is entertaining to learn of yet another futile attempt on his part to escape justice. and... Per Wikipedia in case I am not the only one that did not know: Asperger syndrome is named after Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger who, in 1944, described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, failed to demonstrate empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy. Fifty years later, AS was standardized as a diagnosis.] Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 31 20:28:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:28:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <48B9E8C8.E384ACAD@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BB3712.D20922BD@ix.netcom.com> Sylvia and all, I am not refusing to participate. I must refuse as a matter of security and privacy of myself and our members to use Google for any online purpose. Perhaps you didn't understand that important distinction. If at some point in the future, Google corrects it's errant and privacy/security violating ways in accordance with UN directive and US privacy laws, we will of course, consider Google as a cooperative member of the global internet community in good standing. Sylvia Caras wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > Sylvia and all, > > > > Sorry but I refuse to use Google > > Thanks for letting me know you won't be participating. > > Sylvia Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 31 20:48:47 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:48:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, My response interspersed below Rolands... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48B9E757.6806CED4 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:35:35 on Sat, 30 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > >>Who would act if an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main > >>street? > > > > The city council would shut it down, I can assure you IF it ever was > >to receive a business license to open such a business in the first > >place. > > I wasn't assuming it ever had a business licence - it's illegal, > remember. No it's not an illegal business in Texas. It IS against some city or county ordinances. The distinction is small admittedly, but distinct. > > > > Yet personally, I have no problem with Internet gambling, although > >it needs to be properly provided for, and therefore regulated to > >some degree. The question is as an Internet Right, can this be > >effected on a global basis and enforceable accordingly and effectively? > > If you mean "the right to run a gambling site", then no, because > different countries and cultures have a different view of the businesses > run inside their borders. The Internet is global, ergo borders as far as access are not relevant. Internet gambling is not illegal in the US, owning a Internet based gambling business is illegal. The distinction is fine, yes, but self evident. > > > > BTW, "strip clubs", ect. are not normally considered "Pornographic", > > It's just another form of business where opinions may differ, > geographically. Very much true. > > > >I do believe that some limited regulation is or may be advisable > >and possibly even necessary for the greater good. But such > >IMO, should be determined by referendum vote by the governed. > > And as evidenced by your examples, on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction > basis. Yes, of course. But I personally don't support such. I cannot say definitively if the majority of our members do, or do not. I can say that our members passed a resolution that "Child Pornography" as defined by legal age in any particular country wide jurisdiction is clearly NOT supported. Proliferation of same by any Internet based means is also strictly and fully not supported by myself, and nearly 100% or our members as well. Strict regulation by federal governments is desired by resolution of our members to regulate under certain limiting parameters, any adult erotic content but that individuals are not required/mandated, yet advised, to restrict such content by any technical means available and reasonably effective. Remember technically speaking, it is far to easy for any user to be slimed unwittingly by purveyors of illicit content of any sort or type. I have been many, many times and did not realize such until long after the occurrence's). This activity continues even to this very day, BTW. Ergo the public in some areas of the US have frequently expressed significant concern accordingly, and rightly so, myself included! If you or the members of this forum would like, I will be amenable to demonstrate and articulate as clearly as I can just how many ways this sort of thing occurs on a massive and daily basis. But please feel free to take your position up with DHS or any state official as you see fit or advantageous. >:) > > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 31 20:55:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:55:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48BB3D70.81280A5A@ix.netcom.com> Robert and all, ICANN whether it likes it or not, IS directly and indirectly by it's own actions, significantly involved in "Content" due to the plain and simple technical facts of how the Internet works. Such is inescapable, although frequently denied by several ICANN officials. And frequently denied by ICANN's own contracted agents, namely and mainly registrars, registries, and IP RIR's. This would more especially be so of Afilias, which is your DN's registry.... Robert Guerra wrote: > Danny: > > Indeed I'm a member of NCUC , so what? Had I thought the issue is of > interest to the ICANN community, i would have posted a message on one > of the many icann related lists i'm on. However, my view is that > content regulation policy is incompatible with ICANN's technical > misison. However, it is something that is being discussed in the IGF > space, which is - the - reason I posted the message on this list and > not elsewhere. > > Furthermore, I also mentioned in my original message that I thought > the message is likely of interest to this list as a great deal of > workshops at the upcoming IGF in India will be focused on the topic. > In case you haven't seen the list - the proposed workshop list is > there: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php > > APC, the Council of Europe and others will be presenting on the topic. > > So is posting a message related to a IGF workshops of interest to the > list ? I hope so. I hope others agree as well. > > regards > > Robert > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Robert, > > > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's NonCommercial Constituency, just as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification you could arrange a debate on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance