From pr+governance at x0.dk Fri Feb 1 02:50:45 2008 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:50:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] What's in a domain name? Serious money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080201075044.GA10420@macbook.catpipe.net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz) writes: > What's in a domain name? Serious money > By Brad Stone, January 31, 2008 > iht.com / International Herald Tribune > > Art. Ref.: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/31/technology/domain.php > > Print: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=9648956 > > "The world is only now beginning to discover how important > it is to have these assets." > For the first time, people outside the traditionally insular and sometimes > underground world of domainers, as they call themselves, might agree with him. Hmm, I think speculation on domain names started some 11-12 years ago, and it's pretty much general knowledge that you can squeeze cash out of particular names. > As a result, over the past few months, private equity and venture capital firms > have poured money into the largest companies in the industry. Last year, Demand > Media and Oversee.net, two companies based in Los Angeles that own hundreds of > thousands of domain names each and offer hosting and advertising services to > other domainers, raised nearly $400 million from investors. Gee, sound like 1999. > "We think this is definitely a legitimate industry and a legitimate business," > said Robert Morse Jr., a partner at Oak Hill Capital Partners, which invested > in both companies and is backed by the oil-rich Bass family of Texas. "As with > many early-stage markets, it is going through a transformation to > professionalism." Right. The vultures are wearing suits now. > Investors are so confident in the growth of online advertising - and the > ability of domainers to capitalize on that trend - that they plan to soon start > selling shares of domain-name companies to the public, even in today's volatile > market. Would be fun to allow illimited TLDs in the root at this point and watch a market vaporize. Note: building castles on sand with this kind of money involved is exactly why it will be difficult to ever expand the root to allow for more TLDs. Too many vested business interests. > "Big changes are coming, and for the little guy it's getting challenging," he > said. "The bigger companies can do things, and I can't. We just have to work > harder." UDRP certainly doesn't favor the small guy in these cases: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/04/what_the_hell_is_udrp/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/11/why_icanns_domain_dispute_rules/ (good series of articles from Kieren McCarthy's previous life). Phil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Feb 1 04:52:53 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:52:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] What's in a domain name? Serious money In-Reply-To: <20080201075044.GA10420@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <20080201075044.GA10420@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: Le 1 févr. 08 à 08:50, Phil Regnauld a écrit : > yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz) writes: >> "The world is only now beginning to discover how important >> it is to have these assets." >> For the first time, people outside the traditionally insular and >> sometimes >> underground world of domainers, as they call themselves, might >> agree with him. > > Hmm, I think speculation on domain names started some 11-12 years > ago, > and it's pretty much general knowledge that you can squeeze cash out > of particular names. Yes, even better than the chicken and egg causality dilemma, the balloon (or bubble) and needle inflation/deflation circle!! >> Right. The vultures are wearing suits now. No, no, Phil! The specy is evolving, and the young generation has its own dressing code (say, suits2.0) as soon as it's able to twitter. >> Investors are so confident in the growth of online advertising - >> and the >> ability of domainers to capitalize on that trend - that they plan >> to soon start >> selling shares of domain-name companies to the public, even in >> today's volatile >> market. > > Would be fun to allow illimited TLDs in the root at this point and > watch a > market vaporize. And the needle is.. Ah, I see with great pleasure that we're ready for a new round of discussion on ICANN policy:) Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 1 16:09:14 2008 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:09:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] ICANN to throttle domain tasters Message-ID: <419478.84529.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I just came across this and thought it might be of interest: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/icann_to_stamp_out_domain_tasting/ .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 1 19:48:27 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:48:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN to throttle domain tasters In-Reply-To: <419478.84529.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <419478.84529.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080202004827.GA9650@hserus.net> kwasi boakye-akyeampong [01/02/08 21:09 +0000]: >I just came across this and thought it might be of interest: > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/icann_to_stamp_out_domain_tasting/ See discussion at - http://www.circleid.com/posts/81299_domain_tasting_ends/ srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Feb 3 12:28:18 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:28:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] A Clearer Picture on Voter ID Message-ID: The New York Times, February 3, 2008 Op-Ed Contributors A Clearer Picture on Voter ID By JIMMY CARTER and JAMES A. BAKER III nytimes.com Art. Ref.: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Print: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print - THIS is a major election year. Unfortunately, our two major political parties — Democratic and Republican — continue to disagree on some of the rules that apply to the administration of our elections. This divide is perhaps most contentious when the issue becomes one of whether voters should present photo identification to vote. Twenty-seven states require or request some form of ID to vote. Supporters of this policy argue that if voters identify themselves before voting, election fraud will be reduced. Opponents of an ID requirement fear it will disenfranchise voters, especially the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely than other voters to have suitable identification. The debate is polarized because most of the proponents are Republicans and most of the opponents are Democrats. In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties’ concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.) No state has yet accepted our proposal. What’s more, when it comes to ID laws, confusion reigns. The laws on the books, mainly backed by Republicans, have not made it easy enough for voters to acquire an ID. At the same time, Democrats have tended to try to block voter ID legislation outright — instead of seeking to revise that legislation to promote accessibility. When lower courts have considered challenges to state laws on the question of access, their decisions have not been consistent. And in too many instances, individual judges have appeared to vote along partisan lines. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has taken on a case involving a challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law. The court, which heard arguments last month and is expected to render a judgment this term, has the power finally to bring clarity to this crucial issue. A study by American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management — led by Robert Pastor, who also organized the voting commission — illustrates the problem at hand. The center found that in three states with ID requirements — Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland — only about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID. While the sample was small, and the margin of error was therefore high, we were pleased to see that so few registered voters lacked photo IDs. That was pretty good news. The bad news, however, was this: While the numbers of registered voters without valid photo IDs were few, the groups least likely to have them were women, African-Americans and Democrats. Surveys in other states, of course, may well present a different result. We hope the court will approach the challenges posed by the Indiana law in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way. As we stated in our 2005 report, voter ID laws are not a problem in and of themselves. Rather, the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase — not reduce — voter participation. The recent decision by the Department of Homeland Security to delay putting in place the Real ID Act for at least five years suggests that states should move to photo ID requirements gradually and should do more to ensure that free photo IDs are easily available. The Supreme Court faces a difficult and important decision. If the justices divide along partisan lines, as lower courts have, they would add to the political polarization in the country. We hope that they will find a nonpartisan path that combines both legitimate concerns — ballot security and full access to voting — and underscores the importance of applying these laws in a fair and gradual way. It is also important to remember that our commission’s report addressed other pressing election concerns. There is much more that Congress and state legislatures need to do to improve the electoral process and restore confidence in our democracy. We have outlined 87 such steps in our commission report. In the meantime, the Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue. It has the opportunity to inspire the states, our national leaders and the entire country to bridge the partisan divide on a matter that is important to our democracy. It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat. Jimmy Carter was the 39th president. James A. Baker III was the secretary of state in the George H. W. Bush administration. --- -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Feb 3 12:45:27 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:45:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] California's presidential primary counts - F.Y.I. Message-ID: * A comment about this article, Please take a close look at this graphic from the article: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=1813569 Wouldn't it be nice if we had the ability to 'Poll-the-Field' and pull it up, on all Icann decisions. Shouldn't most Icann decisions be deemed as important as picking a President? - Finally, California's presidential primary counts By Mary Anne Ostrom The Mercury News mercurynews.com Art. Ref.: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_8155851 - California voters Tuesday are going to do something they haven't done in more than a generation: have a say in a closely contested presidential primary. In the wake of the wildest week yet in the 2008 race, voters are expected to come out in record numbers, and what they decide will help shape the final stretch of one of the most intriguing primary seasons in decades. As Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez put it, California's finally "got skin in the game." How long has it been since Californians have had a chance to truly influence a primary race? On the Democratic side, it was California that gave George McGovern the push he needed to secure the nomination. That was 1972. For Republicans, Californians kept Ronald Reagan's first presidential bid alive in 1976, almost to the convention, where incumbent Gerald Ford prevailed. California has always been a player in primaries when it comes to fundraising, it's just that the election almost always happened too late in the season, leaving voters to rubber-stamp an all-but-certain nominee or give a nod to a California politician's futile bid. Some argue you really have to go all the way back to the 1964 contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, when California Republicans sided with Goldwater, an Arizona senator, who became the GOP nominee. With California's decision to move up its primary last year, the delegate-rich state is sharing Feb. 5 with more than 20 other states. So it's unlikely the state alone will be able to claim its voters crowned the nominees or stalled rivals' campaigns. And few are certain when Tuesday's tallies from around the country are added up there even will be a clear leader, particularly in the hugely competitive Democratic contest. Largest prize California, with the most delegates at stake, is Tuesday's largest prize, and even victory by a small margin will carry a lot "We finally have a vote that matters, even if it's not going to be the decisive blow," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. And it's about time, said Pat Backer, a San Jose State University engineering professor who lives in Fremont. "I came here in 1990 and my vote has never counted," the loyal Democratic primary voter said. "We're going to get to make a difference." And whatever happens Tuesday, California's results will be widely watched. In primary politics, the state has gone from political wallflower to bellwether. Talkingpointsmemo.com, a popular political Web site, handicaps the California contest between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama like this: "Make no mistake. This will be the race to watch on Tuesday night." That's exactly the role state leaders hoped for in May when they moved up the primary to Feb. 5, the earliest primary in state history. Well-financed Democratic candidates, in particular, have paid plenty of attention to California. They've had campaign staffs here for months and, in recent weeks, have mounted aggressive on-the-ground and media campaigns. With the two final debates for each party held in Southern California last week, candidates of both parties have made campaign stops from San Diego to San Francisco within days of the election. Clinton was in San Jose as late as Friday, and Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, plans a town hall meeting tonight in San Jose. It's a novelty, even for veterans. "I turned on television and saw ads for primary candidates," said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political strategist in Los Angeles. "I can't remember the last time that happened, if ever." Not all traditions have been thrown overboard, however. Early states like Iowa and New Hampshire had their usual outsize say. The contests helped winnow the field to two viable candidates for each party before California's turn. And Florida, which held its primary last week, could turn out to be the kingmaker state for Republican John McCain, if he romps Tuesday. But Mitt Romney is not giving up, making a last-ditch effort in California and a few other key states. This time, the possible roles California will have in the ultimate outcome are numerous. Kingmaker state? Tuesday's vote could produce a clear leader in both parties, providing the victor with a Western tail wind that would be hard to counter. Or, because of the complex delegate counting system, it could produce enough delegates for even the loser of the popular vote to stay in the race. That's more likely to happen on the Democratic side. California polls suggest Clinton and Obama are in an exceedingly tight contest, after a significant surge of support for the Illinois senator in the past two weeks. And it could send McCain, who has a comfortable lead over Romney, to the nomination. In 2000, California's March 7 primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other contests. California victories for Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore helped them nail down the nominations, but both had fairly good leads before coming into the election. Regardless, the winners of California "can claim bragging rights to the biggest state," said Tony Quinn, a Republican political analyst in Sacramento. Until 1996, California held its primary in June. That year, the state, seeking more influence, moved it to March. But it didn't work. A lot of other states leapfrogged California. By the time the 2004 primary was held March 2, Democrat John Kerry had picked up victories in 18 of 20 states. (President Bush had no serious competition.) Fewer than 40 percent voted, a modern-era record low. This time, competitive races have prompted predictions of the highest turnout for a presidential primary since 1980. The state association of registrars says to expect 56 percent of eligible voters to cast ballots; others estimate it could be as high as 60 percent. Just once in the past six presidential primaries have more than 50 percent of registered voters bothered to cast ballots. Voters are jazzed. Registration figures released Friday showed a record 15.7 million Californians - 68.5 percent of eligible adults - have registered to vote in Tuesday's primary, 700,000 more than in advance of the 2004 primary. A record 5.5 million have requested absentee ballots. Turnout is key And voter turnout will be crucial, especially in the tight Democratic race. Clinton is counting on Latinos, Obama on young voters and those registered as decline-to-state. The latter can only participate in the Democratic primary, and they have an extra hurdle: When they go to the polls, they must request a Democratic ballot. "What makes this much more interesting is that both sides are relying on a block of voters that don't always turn out," said Leon Panetta, a Clinton supporter and founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University-Monterey Bay. Cain said California's proportional system used by Democrats could favor Obama. That's because congressional districts where he might do well, including several in Northern California where he runs strongest, carry slightly more weight than others. Bottom line: If it's a close Democratic contest in California, the delegate-count margin between winner and loser may be tight. The Republican contest is clearer. If Florida cemented McCain's front-runner status, California, where the senator from Arizona is well-known, could put him over the top. Key endorsements last week, including by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has helped him solidify his lead in the state. Even so, Romney is trying to pick off delegates in the state's more conservative congressional districts. In each of the state's 53 districts, the GOP winner gets three delegates. "John has the advantage," said Ken Khachigian, a veteran Republican campaign manager, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 effort. But he added, "There are a lot of people who still don't have a champion." On the Democratic side, Panetta likened the excitement, especially among young voters, to what he felt leading up to the epic and tragic 1968 Democratic primary race in which Californians went to polls in droves and voted for Robert F. Kennedy over Eugene McCarthy. Just hours after winning the primary, Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. Again, young voters "could be the edge," Panetta said. "This one really counts. We haven't for a long time." -- Links: Talkingpointsmemo.com http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ Field Poll breakdown (Graphic) http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=1813569 --- -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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 4 08:44:58 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:44:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> Hi compas, In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I raised problems related to the so-called "Chatham House rules" in supposedly multistakeholder groups like the IGF MAG. My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a business representative (who answers to his/her bosses in a company or business association) to keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less government representatives, who will have to report to their superiors -- after all, they are funded by their entities (companies or governments) to *represent* them there. Several of these representatives come to the MAG with carefully drafted strategies and proposals which they obviously do not create by themselves, rather they are a result of well informed work in their constituencies, who are kept up to date regarding everything which goes on within the MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the objective reality of groups like the MAG. My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these cases are a figure of rethoric. What about civil society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have just drafted a generally good proposal containing procedures for a "new MAG". At one point they suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." One comment I made in the list is to make sure this is evaluated by the interest groups themselves, not only their current MAG members -- and my view has been that we, civil society "reps", are very imperfect in this. But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic vulnerability here: government and business members are chosen by criteria completely different than the one proposed by it. So, like in the case of Chatham rules (in which in practice we are the ones left to abide by it), civil society alone would be the one to try and be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I would say, if not ridiculous. On the other hand, we could not declare a Galilean revolt, say things turn differently, and decide to open up everything in real time so to speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" following of the "Chatham House rules" for us, as I believe the other two stakeholder groups have nearly none? The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is reproduced below. It was posted on Dec.20 (sorry for the delay) but it is still being discussed. In my view, as this list is the main means of communicating with our peers, I am not breaking the rules, whatever they really are in practice. fraternal regards --c.a. ========== SKS proposal ================= PROPOSAL: Role of Chair: - The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN Secretary-General - The Chair should be appointed for the remainder of the mandate of the IGF - we believe that Nitin Desai should continue in this role Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): - A senior local host country representative could participate in the AG meetings and be the interface for logistics and protocol matters for the event Number of AG members: - 40, comprising, in the spirit of true multi-stakeholderism and equal representation, 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, business, civil society and technical community) - Rotation in March, service through end February following year - International organizations with relevance to IG issues are welcome as observers (subject to the approval of the Chair) Advisers to the Chair: - Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair - The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to a host country representative to be one of the five advisers Rotation: - Approximately one third of the AG members from each stakeholder group should rotate every year - Each stakeholder group will be responsible for submitting the names of the outgoing and incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for approval (the Chair may consult as he sees appropriate with regards to the proposed names). Stakeholder groups may provide more names than there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. - If an insufficient number of members have retired from the AG, the Chair may ask individuals to retire (in informal and private conversation) Key guidelines for AG member selection: - AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent"). - Anyone who did not participate actively and conscientiously should not be renewed. (Note that participation can include postings to the list, private communications with the Chair and the secretariat, attendance at meetings, both in Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to facilitate the IGF, etc.). - Quality of participation should count more than quantity of participation. - The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter alia, stakeholders, geographic regions, gender, points of view, while noting that the competence/expertise of the group should not be diluted to achieve this balance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Other members of our community have participated in the discussions leading to this proposal, and are planning to post their specific comments regarding its content to the list. We trust that this proposal is a positive contribution to the continued functioning and success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we look forward to your comments. In addition, we look forward to continuing to work with you and Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of future IGF interactions and events. With our best regards, George Sadowsky John Klensin Matthew Shears ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 4 08:56:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:56:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> References: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <003601c86735$b48b1300$1da13900$@net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less government > representatives, who will have to report to their superiors -- after > all, they are funded by their entities (companies or governments) to I fail to see how this is different from larger and more active civ soc groups, that get funding from grants, or from membership funding. I don’t believe in snow white either, but seriously, several civil society groups that are active enough to spend substantial amounts of money, airfare, time etc on an endless series of conference calls, meetings in resort cities thousands of miles away, etc, operate on a very similar model. And have similar long standing agendas that occupy large numbers of people drafting position papers, policy briefs and such. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 09:10:46 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:10:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> References: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <45ed74050802040610h4ea436a9p26253cf1a8b0f0fb@mail.gmail.com> Greetings: Very interesting. Accord from a *Respectful Interfaces* perspective, which looks to strengths and weaknesses on network arcs comprising social linkages. The following is, again, very - very - welcome and refreshing as regards potentials for productivity via the longstanding key platform approach for international ICT from its beginnings: *"(inter) connectivity*". Let's hear more please and thank you, With kudos and best wishes, :) LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Individual online posting. For I.D. Here: The *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N.; CCC/UN Secretary, Board Member. . *Immediate Reference: On 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote:* "At one point they suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." : *Full text: * On 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Hi compas, > > In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I raised problems related > to the so-called "Chatham House rules" in supposedly multistakeholder > groups like the IGF MAG. > > My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a business representative > (who answers to his/her bosses in a company or business association) to > keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less government > representatives, who will have to report to their superiors -- after > all, they are funded by their entities (companies or governments) to > *represent* them there. Several of these representatives come to the MAG > with carefully drafted strategies and proposals which they obviously do > not create by themselves, rather they are a result of well informed work > in their constituencies, who are kept up to date regarding everything > which goes on within the MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe > in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the objective reality of > groups like the MAG. > > My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these cases are a figure of > rethoric. What about civil society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have > just drafted a generally good proposal containing procedures for a "new > MAG". At one point they suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on > the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is > different than "represent")." One comment I made in the list is to make > sure this is evaluated by the interest groups themselves, not only their > current MAG members -- and my view has been that we, civil society > "reps", are very imperfect in this. > > But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic vulnerability here: government > and business members are chosen by criteria completely different than > the one proposed by it. So, like in the case of Chatham rules (in which > in practice we are the ones left to abide by it), civil society alone > would be the one to try and be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I > would say, if not ridiculous. > > On the other hand, we could not declare a Galilean revolt, say things > turn differently, and decide to open up everything in real time so to > speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" following of the "Chatham > House rules" for us, as I believe the other two stakeholder groups have > nearly none? > > The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is reproduced below. It > was posted on Dec.20 (sorry for the delay) but it is still being > discussed. In my view, as this list is the main means of communicating > with our peers, I am not breaking the rules, whatever they really are in > practice. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ========== SKS proposal ================= > > PROPOSAL: > > Role of Chair: > > - The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN > Secretary-General > > - The Chair should be appointed for the remainder of the mandate of the > IGF - we believe that Nitin Desai should continue in this role > > Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): > > - A senior local host country representative could participate in the AG > meetings and be the interface for logistics and protocol matters for the > event > > Number of AG members: > > - 40, comprising, in the spirit of true multi-stakeholderism and equal > representation, 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, business, > civil society and technical community) > > - Rotation in March, service through end February following year > > - International organizations with relevance to IG issues are welcome as > observers (subject to the approval of the Chair) > > Advisers to the Chair: > > - Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair > > - The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to a host country > representative to be one of the five advisers > > Rotation: > > - Approximately one third of the AG members from each stakeholder group > should rotate every year > > - Each stakeholder group will be responsible for submitting the names of > the outgoing and incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for > approval (the Chair may consult as he sees appropriate with regards to > the proposed names). Stakeholder groups may provide more names than > there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. > > - If an insufficient number of members have retired from the AG, the > Chair may ask individuals to retire (in informal and private conversation) > > Key guidelines for AG member selection: > > - AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a > community they connect to (which is different than "represent"). > > - Anyone who did not participate actively and conscientiously should not > be renewed. (Note that participation can include postings to the list, > private communications with the Chair and the secretariat, attendance at > meetings, both in Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to > facilitate the IGF, etc.). > > - Quality of participation should count more than quantity of > participation. > > - The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter alia, stakeholders, > geographic regions, gender, points of view, while noting that the > competence/expertise of the group should not be diluted to achieve this > balance. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Other members of our community have participated in the discussions > leading to this proposal, and are planning to post their specific > comments regarding its content to the list. > > We trust that this proposal is a positive contribution to the continued > functioning and success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we look > forward to your comments. In addition, we look forward to continuing to > work with you and Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of future > IGF interactions and events. > > With our best regards, > > George Sadowsky > John Klensin > Matthew Shears > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Feb 4 10:56:40 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:56:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> References: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Carlos, I don't understand... Chatham house rule means you can use information from the meetings/list, just that you shouldn't attribute it: "neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed" Are you saying you think govt and business go back and give verbatim reports on who said what? I don't share your concerns (if I'm right, and this is what your concerned about). I expect most people, and I'd guess govt more than others, sometimes say "person X" said something, or more commonly, "civil society's view was generally ... [whatever]" etc. I expect identifying what the reporter considers a stakeholder position is pretty common. If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough of what's being said, you're right. We don't. The SKS proposal is posted on the IGF public forum, attributed to: George Sadowsky John Klensin Matthew Shears Patrik Fältström Bill Graham It's not a secret. Adam At 11:44 AM -0200 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Hi compas, > >In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I >raised problems related to the so-called >"Chatham House rules" in supposedly >multistakeholder groups like the IGF MAG. > >My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a >business representative (who answers to his/her >bosses in a company or business association) to >keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. >Much less government representatives, who will >have to report to their superiors -- after all, >they are funded by their entities (companies or >governments) to *represent* them there. Several >of these representatives come to the MAG with >carefully drafted strategies and proposals which >they obviously do not create by themselves, >rather they are a result of well informed work >in their constituencies, who are kept up to date >regarding everything which goes on within the >MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe in >Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the >objective reality of groups like the MAG. > >My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these >cases are a figure of rethoric. What about civil >society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have just >drafted a generally good proposal containing >procedures for a "new MAG". At one point they >suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on >the basis of how large and diverse a community >they connect to (which is different than >"represent")." One comment I made in the list is >to make sure this is evaluated by the interest >groups themselves, not only their current MAG >members -- and my view has been that we, civil >society "reps", are very imperfect in this. > >But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic >vulnerability here: government and business >members are chosen by criteria completely >different than the one proposed by it. So, like >in the case of Chatham rules (in which in >practice we are the ones left to abide by it), >civil society alone would be the one to try and >be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I >would say, if not ridiculous. > >On the other hand, we could not declare a >Galilean revolt, say things turn differently, >and decide to open up everything in real time so >to speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" >following of the "Chatham House rules" for us, >as I believe the other two stakeholder groups >have nearly none? > >The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is >reproduced below. It was posted on Dec.20 (sorry >for the delay) but it is still being discussed. >In my view, as this list is the main means of >communicating with our peers, I am not breaking >the rules, whatever they really are in practice. > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > > >========== SKS proposal ================= > >PROPOSAL: > >Role of Chair: > >- The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN Secretary-General > >- The Chair should be appointed for the >remainder of the mandate of the IGF - we believe >that Nitin Desai should continue in this role > >Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): > >- A senior local host country representative >could participate in the AG meetings and be the >interface for logistics and protocol matters for >the event > >Number of AG members: > >- 40, comprising, in the spirit of true >multi-stakeholderism and equal representation, >10 from each stakeholder group (governments, >business, civil society and technical community) > >- Rotation in March, service through end February following year > >- International organizations with relevance to >IG issues are welcome as observers (subject to >the approval of the Chair) > >Advisers to the Chair: > >- Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair > >- The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to >a host country representative to be one of the >five advisers > >Rotation: > >- Approximately one third of the AG members from >each stakeholder group should rotate every year > >- Each stakeholder group will be responsible for >submitting the names of the outgoing and >incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for >approval (the Chair may consult as he sees >appropriate with regards to the proposed names). >Stakeholder groups may provide more names than >there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. > >- If an insufficient number of members have >retired from the AG, the Chair may ask >individuals to retire (in informal and private >conversation) > >Key guidelines for AG member selection: > >- AG members should be chosen on the basis of >how large and diverse a community they connect >to (which is different than "represent"). > >- Anyone who did not participate actively and >conscientiously should not be renewed. (Note >that participation can include postings to the >list, private communications with the Chair and >the secretariat, attendance at meetings, both in >Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to >facilitate the IGF, etc.). > >- Quality of participation should count more than quantity of participation. > >- The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter >alia, stakeholders, geographic regions, gender, >points of view, while noting that the >competence/expertise of the group should not be >diluted to achieve this balance. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Other members of our community have participated >in the discussions leading to this proposal, and >are planning to post their specific comments >regarding its content to the list. > >We trust that this proposal is a positive >contribution to the continued functioning and >success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we >look forward to your comments. In addition, we >look forward to continuing to work with you and >Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of >future IGF interactions and events. > >With our best regards, > >George Sadowsky >John Klensin >Matthew Shears > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 10:56:21 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:56:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <003601c86735$b48b1300$1da13900$@net> References: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> <003601c86735$b48b1300$1da13900$@net> Message-ID: <45ed74050802040756p5509560ev5f4cbfc250800a03@mail.gmail.com> Dear Suresh and All: Some more thoughts regarding participation... As for broadening inclusive networks on multi-sectoral bases, expanded and expanding facilities for online participation can greatly expand the size of the table and the number (community) of chairs at it, so as an example, it would be interesting to hear about online participation at the recent RIO (IGF-II) meeting. I'd like to compare my own experiences, for example, attending online (and I am just one example) as we all plan for future events and activities. P.S. Real time 'conversation' and idea-sharing with people on this list, through "remote" linkage, was fun at the time too along with more directly formal ICT issues and topics. Again, as to Community. Looking forward to more discussions on and illustrating inclusiveness, With cordial regards, LDMF Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee for The U.N.. On 2/4/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less government > > representatives, who will have to report to their superiors -- after > > all, they are funded by their entities (companies or governments) to > > I fail to see how this is different from larger and more active civ soc > groups, that get funding from grants, or from membership funding. > > I don't believe in snow white either, but seriously, several civil society > groups that are active enough to spend substantial amounts of money, > airfare, time etc on an endless series of conference calls, meetings in > resort cities thousands of miles away, etc, operate on a very similar model. > And have similar long standing agendas that occupy large numbers of people > drafting position papers, policy briefs and such. > > suresh > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- 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 vladar at diplomacy.edu Mon Feb 4 19:26:59 2008 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:26:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Applications - Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme 2008 Message-ID: <20080205002705.37F3BA6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear colleagues, DiploFoundation is happy to announce the fourth round of the annual Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/). Moreover, this year several bilingual groups will be created as well: English and Arabic, French, Portuguese or Spanish. Please feel free to disseminate the call to all the organisations (governmental, non-governmental, business, international, media, academia...) and individuals that might be interested - both from developing and developed countries. Best! Vladimir Radunovic DiploFoundation CALL FOR APPLICATIONS INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMME 2008 DiploFoundation is currently accepting applications for the 2008 Internet Governance Capacity Building Training Programme (IG CBP). This online programme is designed to improve Internet governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for participants mainly from developing countries. The Programme also facilitates community-building among individuals with different national, cultural, and professional backgrounds. The Programme The programme is open for applicants from government institutions, business, civil society, and other organisations. The programme includes an online training phase - foundation and advanced courses - a policy research phase, and a policy immersion phase. The programme is conducted entirely online. Participants from developing countries are eligible to receive full scholarship support for the foundation course, while for the advanced course, scholarships will be offered to a number of the most successful participants from the foundation course. For the policy research phase, fellowships will be awarded to a number of successful participants from the previous phases. Timeline 3 March-29 April 2008 - Foundation Course on Internet Governance 5 May-29 June 2008 - Advanced Course on Internet Governance September-November 2008 - Policy Research Phase (optional) July 2008 through 2009 - Policy Immersion (fellowships) To Apply For further information and to apply, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/. The deadline for applications is 14 February 2008. -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 16700 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 4 21:01:55 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:01:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <47A716DA.6000301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47A7C393.9090701@rits.org.br> Adam, as to the SKS proposal (which appeared in the mag list as signed by three people, not five), you are right, I did not check beforehand, it is posted in the public forum. Good to know, and I should check it more regularly. As to the rules, yes, I am not talking about verbatim transcripts with all the "gory" details, but to make sure the core of all discussions are made known to our peers. But we would be clearly naïve in thinking that linking of people to opinions and proposals in reporting the meetings is not happening, of course. My main concern, however, is how civil society members of the MAG will handle this while making sure all relevant issues and, let us say, political alignments, are known to our peers as the IGF process goes forward. BTW, I think Suresh did not understand my main point -- I do not want civil society to be a strict follower of these rules (I guess we do not believe in Snow White -- I am referring to the children's version...), but to do it in a way that keeps a reasonable balance of mutual confidence. To find this balance without generating conflict in delicate situations is an art we ought to handle. Presently, I think mostly we, civil society, run little risk of breaking any rules, precisely because we generally are communicating poorly with our peers -- maybe a reason why several of us seem to be rotating around the same discussion spaces for years, rather than involving more people in order to be replaced by new (younger included) minds... frt regards --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Carlos, I don't understand... > > Chatham house rule means you can use information from the meetings/list, > just that you shouldn't attribute it: "neither the identity nor the > affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be > revealed" > > Are you saying you think govt and business go back and give verbatim > reports on who said what? > > I don't share your concerns (if I'm right, and this is what your > concerned about). > > I expect most people, and I'd guess govt more than others, sometimes say > "person X" said something, or more commonly, "civil society's view was > generally ... [whatever]" etc. I expect identifying what the reporter > considers a stakeholder position is pretty common. > > If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough of > what's being said, you're right. We don't. > > The SKS proposal is posted on the IGF public forum, > attributed to: > > George Sadowsky > John Klensin > Matthew Shears > Patrik Fältström > Bill Graham > > It's not a secret. > > Adam > > > > At 11:44 AM -0200 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Hi compas, >> >> In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I raised problems >> related to the so-called "Chatham House rules" in supposedly >> multistakeholder groups like the IGF MAG. >> >> My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a business representative >> (who answers to his/her bosses in a company or business association) >> to keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less >> government representatives, who will have to report to their superiors >> -- after all, they are funded by their entities (companies or >> governments) to *represent* them there. Several of these >> representatives come to the MAG with carefully drafted strategies and >> proposals which they obviously do not create by themselves, rather >> they are a result of well informed work in their constituencies, who >> are kept up to date regarding everything which goes on within the MAG. >> Unless we, civil society people, believe in Snow White and the Seven >> Dwarfs, this is the objective reality of groups like the MAG. >> >> My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these cases are a figure of >> rethoric. What about civil society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have >> just drafted a generally good proposal containing procedures for a >> "new MAG". At one point they suggest that "[M]AG members should be >> chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect >> to (which is different than "represent")." One comment I made in the >> list is to make sure this is evaluated by the interest groups >> themselves, not only their current MAG members -- and my view has been >> that we, civil society "reps", are very imperfect in this. >> >> But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic vulnerability here: >> government and business members are chosen by criteria completely >> different than the one proposed by it. So, like in the case of Chatham >> rules (in which in practice we are the ones left to abide by it), >> civil society alone would be the one to try and be chosen on that kind >> of criteria. Funny, I would say, if not ridiculous. >> >> On the other hand, we could not declare a Galilean revolt, say things >> turn differently, and decide to open up everything in real time so to >> speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" following of the >> "Chatham House rules" for us, as I believe the other two stakeholder >> groups have nearly none? >> >> The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is reproduced below. It >> was posted on Dec.20 (sorry for the delay) but it is still being >> discussed. In my view, as this list is the main means of communicating >> with our peers, I am not breaking the rules, whatever they really are >> in practice. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ========== SKS proposal ================= >> >> PROPOSAL: >> >> Role of Chair: >> >> - The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN >> Secretary-General >> >> - The Chair should be appointed for the remainder of the mandate of >> the IGF - we believe that Nitin Desai should continue in this role >> >> Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): >> >> - A senior local host country representative could participate in the >> AG meetings and be the interface for logistics and protocol matters >> for the event >> >> Number of AG members: >> >> - 40, comprising, in the spirit of true multi-stakeholderism and equal >> representation, 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, business, >> civil society and technical community) >> >> - Rotation in March, service through end February following year >> >> - International organizations with relevance to IG issues are welcome >> as observers (subject to the approval of the Chair) >> >> Advisers to the Chair: >> >> - Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair >> >> - The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to a host country >> representative to be one of the five advisers >> >> Rotation: >> >> - Approximately one third of the AG members from each stakeholder >> group should rotate every year >> >> - Each stakeholder group will be responsible for submitting the names >> of the outgoing and incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for >> approval (the Chair may consult as he sees appropriate with regards to >> the proposed names). Stakeholder groups may provide more names than >> there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. >> >> - If an insufficient number of members have retired from the AG, the >> Chair may ask individuals to retire (in informal and private >> conversation) >> >> Key guidelines for AG member selection: >> >> - AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a >> community they connect to (which is different than "represent"). >> >> - Anyone who did not participate actively and conscientiously should >> not be renewed. (Note that participation can include postings to the >> list, private communications with the Chair and the secretariat, >> attendance at meetings, both in Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in >> helping to facilitate the IGF, etc.). >> >> - Quality of participation should count more than quantity of >> participation. >> >> - The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter alia, stakeholders, >> geographic regions, gender, points of view, while noting that the >> competence/expertise of the group should not be diluted to achieve >> this balance. >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Other members of our community have participated in the discussions >> leading to this proposal, and are planning to post their specific >> comments regarding its content to the list. >> >> We trust that this proposal is a positive contribution to the >> continued functioning and success of the Internet Governance Forum, >> and we look forward to your comments. In addition, we look forward to >> continuing to work with you and Chairman Desai to increase the >> productivity of future IGF interactions and events. >> >> With our best regards, >> >> George Sadowsky >> John Klensin >> Matthew Shears >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Feb 5 18:08:30 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:08:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> References: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> Message-ID: Ha, brilliant! Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this, but it is a fantastic idea. If you don't mind a cut-n-paste, here is some text from my thesis on this topic (footnotes omitted): > One of the shortcomings of these open fora was that the subject > organisations were not required to design them so as to support the > fulfilment of the paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that had prompted > the creation of open fora in the first place. Specifically, the IGF > is called upon to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental > organizations and other institutions on matters under their > purview," and to "assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of > WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." These form part > of the IGF's role of coordination, and in particular that of meta- > governance. > > The fulfilment of this mandate will require more than a one-way > channel of communication from the other organisation to the IGF, yet > because that organisation alone currently determines the content of > its open forum, and because there is no formal interface between its > session and those of the plenary body, there are no means by which > the IGF and the other organisation can engage in dialogue with the > object of fulfilling the above paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. > > To address this, an open forum should be conducted not by a single > stakeholder seeking to defend its position in the Internet > governance regime, but by a multi-stakeholder panel similar to those > that organise workshops, and accredited in a similar manner. If no > such panel can be organised through the decentralised action of > stakeholders, it is appropriate that one be appointed, just as the > Advisory Group currently appoints panels of speakers for the plenary > sessions. ... > the only additional consideration worthy of mention is the > importance of the forum not being moderated by the chief executive > of the organisation under consideration, but by an independent > facilitatator who would ensure that the forum addressed the role, > structure and processes of the organisation in question with > reference to the WSIS process criteria, along with the content of > any relevant draft or final recommendations that the IGF had > considered in plenary session. On 06/02/2008, at 7:42 AM, IGP Info wrote: > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. Department > of Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its > political oversight over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid-term > review of ICANN's 3-year Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S. > Commerce Department NTIA. > > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called > for ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an > agreement to institute a bi-annual review and public consultation > concerning ICANN’s record and accountability. > > > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight > rooted in the global Internet community," the comments state. "The > IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for > discussion and the development of non-binding reports and > recommendations." "Biennial review by the multi-stakeholder IGF > would serve as a kind of "soft oversight," an experimental approach > with more international legitimacy than any of the available > alternatives." > > > These ideas will be raised both at the U.S. Commerce Department > public meeting February 28 and at the public consultation of the IGF > in Geneva February 26. > > > Read IGP's comments here: > > > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > View the NTIA proceeding information here: > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html > > ========================= Subscription Information > ========================= > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web > interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 5 22:27:50 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:27:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: References: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thanks, Jeremy. Both IGF and ICANN are going to have mixed feelings but I have no indication yet that either is adamantly opposed. Is your thesis published yet? > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 6:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > Ha, brilliant! Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this, but > it is a fantastic idea. > > If you don't mind a cut-n-paste, here is some text from my thesis on > this topic (footnotes omitted): > > > One of the shortcomings of these open fora was that the subject > > organisations were not required to design them so as to support the > > fulfilment of the paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that had prompted > > the creation of open fora in the first place. Specifically, the IGF > > is called upon to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental > > organizations and other institutions on matters under their > > purview," and to "assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of > > WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." These form part > > of the IGF's role of coordination, and in particular that of meta- > > governance. > > > > The fulfilment of this mandate will require more than a one-way > > channel of communication from the other organisation to the IGF, yet > > because that organisation alone currently determines the content of > > its open forum, and because there is no formal interface between its > > session and those of the plenary body, there are no means by which > > the IGF and the other organisation can engage in dialogue with the > > object of fulfilling the above paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. > > > > To address this, an open forum should be conducted not by a single > > stakeholder seeking to defend its position in the Internet > > governance regime, but by a multi-stakeholder panel similar to those > > that organise workshops, and accredited in a similar manner. If no > > such panel can be organised through the decentralised action of > > stakeholders, it is appropriate that one be appointed, just as the > > Advisory Group currently appoints panels of speakers for the plenary > > sessions. > ... > > the only additional consideration worthy of mention is the > > importance of the forum not being moderated by the chief executive > > of the organisation under consideration, but by an independent > > facilitatator who would ensure that the forum addressed the role, > > structure and processes of the organisation in question with > > reference to the WSIS process criteria, along with the content of > > any relevant draft or final recommendations that the IGF had > > considered in plenary session. > > On 06/02/2008, at 7:42 AM, IGP Info wrote: > > > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. Department > > of Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its > > political oversight over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid-term > > review of ICANN's 3-year Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S. > > Commerce Department NTIA. > > > > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called > > for ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an > > agreement to institute a bi-annual review and public consultation > > concerning ICANN's record and accountability. > > > > > > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight > > rooted in the global Internet community," the comments state. "The > > IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for > > discussion and the development of non-binding reports and > > recommendations." "Biennial review by the multi-stakeholder IGF > > would serve as a kind of "soft oversight," an experimental approach > > with more international legitimacy than any of the available > > alternatives." > > > > > > These ideas will be raised both at the U.S. Commerce Department > > public meeting February 28 and at the public consultation of the IGF > > in Geneva February 26. > > > > > > Read IGP's comments here: > > > > > > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > > > > View the NTIA proceeding information here: > > > > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html > > > > ========================= Subscription Information > > ========================= > > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web > > interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 6 00:01:10 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:31:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> >If you're just saying the civil society members >don't report enough of what's being said, you're >right. We don't. That’s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a minor post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we don’t. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in the IGC's nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely communicating the process details (which are important, and most have never communicated even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider the IGC and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at least one of their primary constituencies). Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG members who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and related issues? I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators such accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability mechanisms. A lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and necessary part of accountability in public life. Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and their choices and values). Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers Carlos, I don't understand... Chatham house rule means you can use information from the meetings/list, just that you shouldn't attribute it: "neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed" Are you saying you think govt and business go back and give verbatim reports on who said what? I don't share your concerns (if I'm right, and this is what your concerned about). I expect most people, and I'd guess govt more than others, sometimes say "person X" said something, or more commonly, "civil society's view was generally ... [whatever]" etc. I expect identifying what the reporter considers a stakeholder position is pretty common. If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough of what's being said, you're right. We don't. The SKS proposal is posted on the IGF public forum, attributed to: George Sadowsky John Klensin Matthew Shears Patrik Fältström Bill Graham It's not a secret. Adam At 11:44 AM -0200 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Hi compas, > >In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I >raised problems related to the so-called >"Chatham House rules" in supposedly >multistakeholder groups like the IGF MAG. > >My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a >business representative (who answers to his/her >bosses in a company or business association) to >keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. >Much less government representatives, who will >have to report to their superiors -- after all, >they are funded by their entities (companies or >governments) to *represent* them there. Several >of these representatives come to the MAG with >carefully drafted strategies and proposals which >they obviously do not create by themselves, >rather they are a result of well informed work >in their constituencies, who are kept up to date >regarding everything which goes on within the >MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe in >Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the >objective reality of groups like the MAG. > >My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these >cases are a figure of rethoric. What about civil >society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have just >drafted a generally good proposal containing >procedures for a "new MAG". At one point they >suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on >the basis of how large and diverse a community >they connect to (which is different than >"represent")." One comment I made in the list is >to make sure this is evaluated by the interest >groups themselves, not only their current MAG >members -- and my view has been that we, civil >society "reps", are very imperfect in this. > >But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic >vulnerability here: government and business >members are chosen by criteria completely >different than the one proposed by it. So, like >in the case of Chatham rules (in which in >practice we are the ones left to abide by it), >civil society alone would be the one to try and >be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I >would say, if not ridiculous. > >On the other hand, we could not declare a >Galilean revolt, say things turn differently, >and decide to open up everything in real time so >to speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" >following of the "Chatham House rules" for us, >as I believe the other two stakeholder groups >have nearly none? > >The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is >reproduced below. It was posted on Dec.20 (sorry >for the delay) but it is still being discussed. >In my view, as this list is the main means of >communicating with our peers, I am not breaking >the rules, whatever they really are in practice. > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > > >========== SKS proposal ================= > >PROPOSAL: > >Role of Chair: > >- The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN Secretary-General > >- The Chair should be appointed for the >remainder of the mandate of the IGF - we believe >that Nitin Desai should continue in this role > >Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): > >- A senior local host country representative >could participate in the AG meetings and be the >interface for logistics and protocol matters for >the event > >Number of AG members: > >- 40, comprising, in the spirit of true >multi-stakeholderism and equal representation, >10 from each stakeholder group (governments, >business, civil society and technical community) > >- Rotation in March, service through end February following year > >- International organizations with relevance to >IG issues are welcome as observers (subject to >the approval of the Chair) > >Advisers to the Chair: > >- Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair > >- The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to >a host country representative to be one of the >five advisers > >Rotation: > >- Approximately one third of the AG members from >each stakeholder group should rotate every year > >- Each stakeholder group will be responsible for >submitting the names of the outgoing and >incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for >approval (the Chair may consult as he sees >appropriate with regards to the proposed names). >Stakeholder groups may provide more names than >there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. > >- If an insufficient number of members have >retired from the AG, the Chair may ask >individuals to retire (in informal and private >conversation) > >Key guidelines for AG member selection: > >- AG members should be chosen on the basis of >how large and diverse a community they connect >to (which is different than "represent"). > >- Anyone who did not participate actively and >conscientiously should not be renewed. (Note >that participation can include postings to the >list, private communications with the Chair and >the secretariat, attendance at meetings, both in >Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to >facilitate the IGF, etc.). > >- Quality of participation should count more than quantity of participation. > >- The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter >alia, stakeholders, geographic regions, gender, >points of view, while noting that the >competence/expertise of the group should not be >diluted to achieve this balance. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Other members of our community have participated >in the discussions leading to this proposal, and >are planning to post their specific comments >regarding its content to the list. > >We trust that this proposal is a positive >contribution to the continued functioning and >success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we >look forward to your comments. In addition, we >look forward to continuing to work with you and >Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of >future IGF interactions and events. > >With our best regards, > >George Sadowsky >John Klensin >Matthew Shears > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 6 00:22:42 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:22:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <24D31D28-C66D-4E78-B9DB-639E10B1450F@Malcolm.id.au> On 06/02/2008, at 12:27 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy. Both IGF and ICANN are going to have mixed feelings > but > I have no indication yet that either is adamantly opposed. > > Is your thesis published yet? All but; it's due for submission next month. The only changes from the version now at http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/ are that I have some sections earmarked for deletion to reduce the word count, and there are some broken URLs I'm now fixing up. Oh, and the IGP has just announced a proposal for ICANN oversight that I'm going to have to mention somewhere. ;-) -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 6 06:02:48 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:32:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> We fully support IGP's proposal for an IGF anchored soft oversight mechanism for ICANN, as the IGP doc puts it, ' until such time as a formal international regime is negotiated'. I will try to give some more substantive comments on the proposal in a while. Meanwhile it may be of some significance in the context of this proposal to note that para 71 of Tunis Agenda does mandate that ". The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports." And the reading of the doc makes it clear that ICANN is one of the primary 'relevant organizations' implied here. TA does not mention to whom should these performance reports be submitted. But since IGF is the only IG related institutional structure that came out of the WSIS, it isn't a far-shot to expect these reports be submitted to the IGF. And there are pointer in para 72 that specifically lays out IGC's mandate that make it possible to envisage the proposed soft oversight mechanism as cohering in the IGF. Para 72 (c) speaks about IGF's mandate to 'interface with appropriate (IG).... institutions...' and para 72 (Bill Drake's favorite :)) mandates IGF to 'promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes" All these provisions read together makes IGP proposal as something quite plausible. And when there are expectation of performance reports, one can always throw in richer processes of assessment, report-backs etc. However, the real problem is that TA and WSIS docs have been unilaterally interpreted by some dominant sections - either they were/ are just so over-cautious that they are politically paralyzed, or they are simply partisan to the status quo which serves dominant forces/ sections - in a manner that makes IGF tokenistic and almost entirely ineffective... Problem is, civil society and IGC, in my view, hasn't done enough to counter this. Many are just politically quite comfortable with an ineffective IGF. In this context Jeremy's observation ' Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this' is a bit amusing. I don't know 'what is the IGF' to know if IGF wont like it. Is it its current governance system - the MAG etc. But one would normally think that any organization would welcome another agency that has power in an area which concerns its scope of work/ mandate to be accountable to it.... And as described above there are indicators in the organization's mandate for such an arrangement... So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Thanks, Jeremy. Both IGF and ICANN are going to have mixed feelings but I have no indication yet that either is adamantly opposed. Is your thesis published yet? > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 6:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > Ha, brilliant! Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this, but > it is a fantastic idea. > > If you don't mind a cut-n-paste, here is some text from my thesis on > this topic (footnotes omitted): > > > One of the shortcomings of these open fora was that the subject > > organisations were not required to design them so as to support the > > fulfilment of the paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that had prompted > > the creation of open fora in the first place. Specifically, the IGF > > is called upon to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental > > organizations and other institutions on matters under their > > purview," and to "assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of > > WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." These form part > > of the IGF's role of coordination, and in particular that of meta- > > governance. > > > > The fulfilment of this mandate will require more than a one-way > > channel of communication from the other organisation to the IGF, yet > > because that organisation alone currently determines the content of > > its open forum, and because there is no formal interface between its > > session and those of the plenary body, there are no means by which > > the IGF and the other organisation can engage in dialogue with the > > object of fulfilling the above paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. > > > > To address this, an open forum should be conducted not by a single > > stakeholder seeking to defend its position in the Internet > > governance regime, but by a multi-stakeholder panel similar to those > > that organise workshops, and accredited in a similar manner. If no > > such panel can be organised through the decentralised action of > > stakeholders, it is appropriate that one be appointed, just as the > > Advisory Group currently appoints panels of speakers for the plenary > > sessions. > ... > > the only additional consideration worthy of mention is the > > importance of the forum not being moderated by the chief executive > > of the organisation under consideration, but by an independent > > facilitatator who would ensure that the forum addressed the role, > > structure and processes of the organisation in question with > > reference to the WSIS process criteria, along with the content of > > any relevant draft or final recommendations that the IGF had > > considered in plenary session. > > On 06/02/2008, at 7:42 AM, IGP Info wrote: > > > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. Department > > of Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its > > political oversight over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid-term > > review of ICANN's 3-year Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S. > > Commerce Department NTIA. > > > > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called > > for ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an > > agreement to institute a bi-annual review and public consultation > > concerning ICANN's record and accountability. > > > > > > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight > > rooted in the global Internet community," the comments state. "The > > IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for > > discussion and the development of non-binding reports and > > recommendations." "Biennial review by the multi-stakeholder IGF > > would serve as a kind of "soft oversight," an experimental approach > > with more international legitimacy than any of the available > > alternatives." > > > > > > These ideas will be raised both at the U.S. Commerce Department > > public meeting February 28 and at the public consultation of the IGF > > in Geneva February 26. > > > > > > Read IGP's comments here: > > > > > > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > > > > View the NTIA proceeding information here: > > > > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html > > > > ========================= Subscription Information > > ========================= > > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web > > interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 06:08:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:08:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 Feb 6 06:19:03 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:19:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2008 2:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > There isn't any "IGF" as such This is a good point, is there an organisation registered anywhere? Is it a UN body like the ITU (I assume the ITU has some kind of articles of incorporation). Does the IGF have an of this kind of documentation? Is it an .int? an NGO? offices? a phone number? letterhead? tax numbers? anything? – only some extraordinarily vocal sections of > civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some > cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a > substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. > > > > 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially > with politically charged proposals > > 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe > dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > all very true. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 06:20:26 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:20:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> References: <2002706694.144101202251348267.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> Message-ID: <45ed74050802060320g79d95417ub25a947be02c6d9d@mail.gmail.com> Thanks much for posting this. *Community* is indeed at the heart of things desired, is it not, and several hereabouts very involved promoting it. (" What's in a Network ... What's in a Link? (?)) ". With best wishes, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff For I.D. here: * Respectful Interfaces*. On 2/5/08, IGP Info wrote: > > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. Department of > Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its political oversight > over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid-term review of ICANN's 3-year > Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA. > > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called for > ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an agreement > to institute a bi-annual review and *public consultation* concerning > ICANN's record and accountability. > > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight rooted > in the global Internet *community*," the comments state. > . . . -------------- 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 Wed Feb 6 06:26:25 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:26:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: >> If you're just saying the civil society members >> don't report enough of what's being said, you're >> right. We don't. > > That’s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a minor > post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we > don’t. Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that hasn't been reported by any of us. (Remember, it is not just Adam and me. We are about 6 if we include Wolfgang, the special adviser.) What I have noticed is that very often there is not much of a response from the caucus. For example, in early january I sent a long email that listed all the issues under discussion in the MAG including my own opinion in cases where I thought it might matter. From what I remember, Jeremy was the only one who took up at least one of the issues. Such a weak feedback is not very encouraging, is it? jeanette > > Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in the IGC's > nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected > members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely communicating > the process details (which are important, and most have never communicated > even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider the IGC > and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at least one > of their primary constituencies). > > Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG members > who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about > assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and > related issues? > > I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators such > accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private > sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability mechanisms. A > lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and > necessary part of accountability in public life. > > Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and > accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public > roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and their > choices and values). > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > Carlos, I don't understand... > > Chatham house rule means you can use information > from the meetings/list, just that you shouldn't > attribute it: "neither the identity nor the > affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any > other participant, may be revealed" > > Are you saying you think govt and business go > back and give verbatim reports on who said what? > > I don't share your concerns (if I'm right, and > this is what your concerned about). > > I expect most people, and I'd guess govt more > than others, sometimes say "person X" said > something, or more commonly, "civil society's > view was generally ... [whatever]" etc. I expect > identifying what the reporter considers a > stakeholder position is pretty common. > > If you're just saying the civil society members > don't report enough of what's being said, you're > right. We don't. > > The SKS proposal is posted on the IGF public > forum, > > attributed to: > > George Sadowsky > John Klensin > Matthew Shears > Patrik Fältström > Bill Graham > > It's not a secret. > > Adam > > > > At 11:44 AM -0200 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Hi compas, >> >> In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I >> raised problems related to the so-called >> "Chatham House rules" in supposedly >> multistakeholder groups like the IGF MAG. >> >> My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a >> business representative (who answers to his/her >> bosses in a company or business association) to >> keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. >> Much less government representatives, who will >> have to report to their superiors -- after all, >> they are funded by their entities (companies or >> governments) to *represent* them there. Several >> of these representatives come to the MAG with >> carefully drafted strategies and proposals which >> they obviously do not create by themselves, >> rather they are a result of well informed work >> in their constituencies, who are kept up to date >> regarding everything which goes on within the >> MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe in >> Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the >> objective reality of groups like the MAG. >> >> My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these >> cases are a figure of rethoric. What about civil >> society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have just >> drafted a generally good proposal containing >> procedures for a "new MAG". At one point they >> suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on >> the basis of how large and diverse a community >> they connect to (which is different than >> "represent")." One comment I made in the list is >> to make sure this is evaluated by the interest >> groups themselves, not only their current MAG >> members -- and my view has been that we, civil >> society "reps", are very imperfect in this. >> >> But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic >> vulnerability here: government and business >> members are chosen by criteria completely >> different than the one proposed by it. So, like >> in the case of Chatham rules (in which in >> practice we are the ones left to abide by it), >> civil society alone would be the one to try and >> be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I >> would say, if not ridiculous. >> >> On the other hand, we could not declare a >> Galilean revolt, say things turn differently, >> and decide to open up everything in real time so >> to speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" >> following of the "Chatham House rules" for us, >> as I believe the other two stakeholder groups >> have nearly none? >> >> The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is >> reproduced below. It was posted on Dec.20 (sorry >> for the delay) but it is still being discussed. >> In my view, as this list is the main means of >> communicating with our peers, I am not breaking >> the rules, whatever they really are in practice. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ========== SKS proposal ================= >> >> PROPOSAL: >> >> Role of Chair: >> >> - The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN > Secretary-General >> - The Chair should be appointed for the >> remainder of the mandate of the IGF - we believe >> that Nitin Desai should continue in this role >> >> Host country representative (at the host country's discretion): >> >> - A senior local host country representative >> could participate in the AG meetings and be the >> interface for logistics and protocol matters for >> the event >> >> Number of AG members: >> >> - 40, comprising, in the spirit of true >> multi-stakeholderism and equal representation, >> 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, >> business, civil society and technical community) >> >> - Rotation in March, service through end February following year >> >> - International organizations with relevance to >> IG issues are welcome as observers (subject to >> the approval of the Chair) >> >> Advisers to the Chair: >> >> - Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair >> >> - The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to >> a host country representative to be one of the >> five advisers >> >> Rotation: >> >> - Approximately one third of the AG members from >> each stakeholder group should rotate every year >> >> - Each stakeholder group will be responsible for >> submitting the names of the outgoing and >> incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for >> approval (the Chair may consult as he sees >> appropriate with regards to the proposed names). >> Stakeholder groups may provide more names than >> there are seats. The Chair's decision is final. >> >> - If an insufficient number of members have >> retired from the AG, the Chair may ask >> individuals to retire (in informal and private >> conversation) >> >> Key guidelines for AG member selection: >> >> - AG members should be chosen on the basis of >> how large and diverse a community they connect >> to (which is different than "represent"). >> >> - Anyone who did not participate actively and >> conscientiously should not be renewed. (Note >> that participation can include postings to the >> list, private communications with the Chair and >> the secretariat, attendance at meetings, both in >> Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to >> facilitate the IGF, etc.). >> >> - Quality of participation should count more than quantity of > participation. >> - The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter >> alia, stakeholders, geographic regions, gender, >> points of view, while noting that the >> competence/expertise of the group should not be >> diluted to achieve this balance. >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Other members of our community have participated >> in the discussions leading to this proposal, and >> are planning to post their specific comments >> regarding its content to the list. >> >> We trust that this proposal is a positive >> contribution to the continued functioning and >> success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we >> look forward to your comments. In addition, we >> look forward to continuing to work with you and >> Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of >> future IGF interactions and events. >> >> With our best regards, >> >> George Sadowsky >> John Klensin >> Matthew Shears >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 06:37:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:07:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> Message-ID: <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> Suresh > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly so) emission control norms for themselves........ So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. And if we just don't bother say that as well. When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 06:48:08 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:48:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> Parminder, I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated to govern the country. In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from DoC and reassign it to IGF. ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to help. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly so) emission control norms for themselves........ So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. And if we just don't bother say that as well. When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 6 06:59:43 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:59:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: In-Reply-To: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> Message-ID: <47A9A12F.7090502@wzb.eu> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There isn’t any “IGF” as such – only some extraordinarily vocal sections > of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, > in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. I think this can be said about almost every organization in its formative state. Moreover, even established organizations can create such impressions. If its mission gets extended, the IGF will most likely evolve over time. Couldn't formal tasks for the IGF be a way of evoking desirable change? jeanette Yes there’d > be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. > > > > 1. There’s no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, > especially with politically charged proposals > > 2. DoC isn’t going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of > pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming > ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and > why ????? > > This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, > would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any > conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this > discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. > > > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 07:56:45 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:56:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <47A9A12F.7090502@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <47A9A12F.7090502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080206125645.GB5333@hserus.net> Jeanette Hofmann [06/02/08 11:59 +0000]: > If its mission gets extended, the IGF will most likely evolve over time. > Couldn't formal tasks for the IGF be a way of evoking desirable change? Quite feasible. But when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter governance processes, trying to create a whole new path isnt going to be productive ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 08:19:34 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:19:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> References: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> Message-ID: At 11:26 AM +0000 2/6/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Parminder wrote: >>>If you're just saying the civil society >>>members don't report enough of what's being >>>said, you're right. We don't. >> >>That¹s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a minor >>post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we >>don¹t. > >Actually I am not sure if there has been any >substantial issue that hasn't been reported by >any of us. That's true. Except the great leak, which I personally wouldn't have reported, at the time I felt as bound by normal netiquette we expect of private lists as much as any chatham house rule. But I think some more frequent reporting could be helpful. Even if it's just to say that nothing's happening. The MAG list is not busy, about 1400 messages since May 2006. Last 6 months: 44 in August, 112 September, 164 October, 136 November, 40 December, 39 January. During those 6 months there was one Geneva consultation and the Rio meeting, speaker discussions etc. Inevitable "me toos" and off topic stuff included of course. This document from the time names were put forward might be helpful See criteria. We weren't all or only nominated by the caucus, names the IGC put forward were: Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake From that list Adam Peake, Ken Lohento, Jeanette Hofmann, Qusai AlShatti, Robin Gross became MAG members, along with Titilayo Akinsanmi and Erick Iriarte and chair's special advisors, (Nitin) Wolfgang Kleinwächter and Jovan Kurbalija, and (Brazil) Carlos Afonso. (hope I'm not missing anyone!) >(Remember, it is not just Adam and me. We are >about 6 if we include Wolfgang, the special >adviser.) What I have noticed is that very often >there is not much of a response from the caucus. >For example, in early january I sent a long >email that listed all the issues under >discussion in the MAG including my own opinion >in cases where I thought it might matter. From >what I remember, Jeremy was the only one who >took up at least one of the issues. >Such a weak feedback is not very encouraging, is it? I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful. The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. Are we prepared? There was a very useful thread in November/December. Adam >jeanette > >> >>Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in the IGC's >>nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected >>members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely communicating >>the process details (which are important, and most have never communicated >>even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider the IGC >>and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at least one >>of their primary constituencies). >> >>Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG members >>who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about >>assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and >>related issues? >> >> I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators such >>accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private >>sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability mechanisms. A >>lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and >>necessary part of accountability in public life.  >>Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and >>accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public >>roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and their >>choices and values). >> >>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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 6 09:07:33 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:07:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <904739E6-D4AD-45D8-9282-B5D58654ECDD@ras.eu.org> Hi Parminder and all, I suggest that we forget, at least as for now, about the never-ending discussion of acting inside/outside/beside/aside for anyone to achieve anything anywhere. And, instead, that we concentrate on our task as IGC, which is - inter alia - to prepare an IGC statement to next IGF consultations this month. One important part of such a statement should be, as a followup of the IGC workshop organized in Rio, to suggest that next IGFs dedicate sessions where para 71 of the TA would be implemented. This could build on IGP proposal, but should have a wider objective. Obviously ICANN is one of the primary 'relevant organizations' as you said, but not the only one. ITU is of high importance too, most notably with its 'Global Cybersecurity Agenda' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/ cybersecurity/gca/) and its related 'High-Level Experts Group' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/). Who are this experts, what are they doing? Why are their meetings closed, contrarily to all other meetings directly or indirectly related to post-wsis activities (see http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/ cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0?). More generally speaking, we may discuss whether it makes sense to continue with the current situation, where on the one hand the IGF is discussing almost any issue, and on the other hand the WSIS actions lines are supposed to address many of these issues. Should all these activities be articulated, merged, confronted ? The minimum would be to assess them and their outcomes. There are indeed meetings organized yearly in May, during the "information society day", but the attendance is nothing compared to IGF. The 2007 meeting of action lines C1, C7 and C11 was attended by 56 participants (!), "26 representatives from Member States, 20 representatives from UN agencies, regional and international organizations, 6 from the civil society and academia, and 4 from the private sector, as we may read in the related report. For action lines C2, C4 and C6, the 2007 meeting gathered 80 participants. The most attended was probably action line C5 meeting, with.. some 120 participants. So, where actually are things going on? Which things exactly? How are they coordinated? Or is no one caring about this? Best, meryem Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:02, Parminder a écrit : > We fully support IGP's proposal for an IGF anchored soft oversight > mechanism for ICANN, as the IGP doc puts it, ' until such time as a > formal international regime is negotiated'. > > I will try to give some more substantive comments on the proposal > in a while. Meanwhile it may be of some significance in the context > of this proposal to note that para 71 of Tunis Agenda does mandate > that > > ". The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide > annual performance reports." > > And the reading of the doc makes it clear that ICANN is one of the > primary 'relevant organizations' implied here. > > TA does not mention to whom should these performance reports be > submitted. But since IGF is the only IG related institutional > structure that came out of the WSIS, it isn’t a far-shot to expect > these reports be submitted to the IGF. And there are pointer in > para 72 that specifically lays out IGC's mandate that make it > possible to envisage the proposed soft oversight mechanism as > cohering in the IGF. > > Para 72 (c) speaks about IGF's mandate to 'interface with > appropriate (IG).... institutions...' and para 72 (Bill Drake's > favorite :)) mandates IGF to 'promote and assess, on an ongoing > basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes" > > All these provisions read together makes IGP proposal as something > quite plausible. And when there are expectation of performance > reports, one can always throw in richer processes of assessment, > report-backs etc. > > However, the real problem is that TA and WSIS docs have been > unilaterally interpreted by some dominant sections - either they > were/ are just so over-cautious that they are politically > paralyzed, or they are simply partisan to the status quo which > serves dominant forces/ sections - in a manner that makes IGF > tokenistic and almost entirely ineffective... > > Problem is, civil society and IGC, in my view, hasn’t done enough > to counter this. Many are just politically quite comfortable with > an ineffective IGF. > > In this context Jeremy's observation ' Neither the IGF nor ICANN is > going to like this' is a bit amusing. I don’t know ‘what is the > IGF’ to know if IGF wont like it. Is it its current governance > system - the MAG etc. But one would normally think that any > organization would welcome another agency that has power in an area > which concerns its scope of work/ mandate to be accountable to it.... > > And as described above there are indicators in the organization's > mandate for such an arrangement... > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... > and why ????? > This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be > true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping > to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some > elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more > debate in this important area. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming > ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > Thanks, Jeremy. Both IGF and ICANN are going to have mixed feelings > but > > I have no indication yet that either is adamantly opposed. > > > > Is your thesis published yet? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 6:09 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > > > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > > > Ha, brilliant! Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this, but > > > it is a fantastic idea. > > > > > > If you don't mind a cut-n-paste, here is some text from my thesis on > > > this topic (footnotes omitted): > > > > > > > One of the shortcomings of these open fora was that the subject > > > > organisations were not required to design them so as to support > the > > > > fulfilment of the paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that had > prompted > > > > the creation of open fora in the first place. Specifically, the > IGF > > > > is called upon to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental > > > > organizations and other institutions on matters under their > > > > purview," and to "assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of > > > > WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." These form part > > > > of the IGF's role of coordination, and in particular that of meta- > > > > governance. > > > > > > > > The fulfilment of this mandate will require more than a one-way > > > > channel of communication from the other organisation to the > IGF, yet > > > > because that organisation alone currently determines the > content of > > > > its open forum, and because there is no formal interface > between its > > > > session and those of the plenary body, there are no means by which > > > > the IGF and the other organisation can engage in dialogue with the > > > > object of fulfilling the above paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > > > To address this, an open forum should be conducted not by a single > > > > stakeholder seeking to defend its position in the Internet > > > > governance regime, but by a multi-stakeholder panel similar to > those > > > > that organise workshops, and accredited in a similar manner. If no > > > > such panel can be organised through the decentralised action of > > > > stakeholders, it is appropriate that one be appointed, just as the > > > > Advisory Group currently appoints panels of speakers for the > plenary > > > > sessions. > > > ... > > > > the only additional consideration worthy of mention is the > > > > importance of the forum not being moderated by the chief executive > > > > of the organisation under consideration, but by an independent > > > > facilitatator who would ensure that the forum addressed the role, > > > > structure and processes of the organisation in question with > > > > reference to the WSIS process criteria, along with the content of > > > > any relevant draft or final recommendations that the IGF had > > > > considered in plenary session. > > > > > > On 06/02/2008, at 7:42 AM, IGP Info wrote: > > > > > > > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. > Department > > > > of Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its > > > > political oversight over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid- > term > > > > review of ICANN's 3-year Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the > U.S. > > > > Commerce Department NTIA. > > > > > > > > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called > > > > for ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an > > > > agreement to institute a bi-annual review and public consultation > > > > concerning ICANN's record and accountability. > > > > > > > > > > > > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight > > > > rooted in the global Internet community," the comments state. "The > > > > IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for > > > > discussion and the development of non-binding reports and > > > > recommendations." "Biennial review by the multi-stakeholder IGF > > > > would serve as a kind of "soft oversight," an experimental > approach > > > > with more international legitimacy than any of the available > > > > alternatives." > > > > > > > > > > > > These ideas will be raised both at the U.S. Commerce Department > > > > public meeting February 28 and at the public consultation of > the IGF > > > > in Geneva February 26. > > > > > > > > > > > > Read IGP's comments here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > View the NTIA proceeding information here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html > > > > > > > > ========================= Subscription Information > > > > ========================= > > > > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web > > > > interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > > > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Feb 6 09:00:24 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:00:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <47A9BD78.1030108@rits.org.br> I am not sure "that great leak" is a good example -- it derived from a very serious attempt at forcing the way, and this had to be made known, unfortunately. Well, I assume we are talking about the same leak... --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > At 11:26 AM +0000 2/6/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Parminder wrote: >>>> If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough >>>> of what's being said, you're right. We don't. >>> >>> That¹s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a >>> minor >>> post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we >>> don¹t. >> >> Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that >> hasn't been reported by any of us. > > > That's true. Except the great leak, which I personally wouldn't have > reported, at the time I felt as bound by normal netiquette we expect of > private lists as much as any chatham house rule. > > But I think some more frequent reporting could be helpful. Even if it's > just to say that nothing's happening. The MAG list is not busy, about > 1400 messages since May 2006. Last 6 months: 44 in August, 112 > September, 164 October, 136 November, 40 December, 39 January. During > those 6 months there was one Geneva consultation and the Rio meeting, > speaker discussions etc. Inevitable "me toos" and off topic stuff > included of course. > > > This document from the time names were put forward might be helpful > See criteria. > > We weren't all or only nominated by the caucus, names the IGC put > forward were: > > Adam Peake > Chun Eunghwi > Divina Frau-Meigs > Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento > Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares > Jeanette Hofmann > Mawaki Chango > Milton Mueller > Parminder Jeet Singh > Paul Byron Wilson > Qusai AlShatti > Rikke Frank Joergensen > Robert Guerra > Robin D. Gross > William Drake > > From that list Adam Peake, Ken Lohento, Jeanette Hofmann, Qusai > AlShatti, Robin Gross became MAG members, along with Titilayo Akinsanmi > and Erick Iriarte and chair's special advisors, (Nitin) Wolfgang > Kleinwächter and Jovan Kurbalija, and (Brazil) Carlos Afonso. (hope I'm > not missing anyone!) > > > >> (Remember, it is not just Adam and me. We are about 6 if we include >> Wolfgang, the special adviser.) What I have noticed is that very often >> there is not much of a response from the caucus. For example, in early >> january I sent a long email that listed all the issues under >> discussion in the MAG including my own opinion in cases where I >> thought it might matter. From what I remember, Jeremy was the only one >> who took up at least one of the issues. >> Such a weak feedback is not very encouraging, is it? > > > I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful. > > The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. Are we prepared? There > was a very useful thread in November/December. > > Adam > > > >> jeanette >> >>> >>> Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in >>> the IGC's >>> nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected >>> members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely >>> communicating >>> the process details (which are important, and most have never >>> communicated >>> even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider >>> the IGC >>> and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at >>> least one >>> of their primary constituencies). >>> >>> Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG >>> members >>> who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about >>> assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and >>> related issues? >>> >>> I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators >>> such >>> accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private >>> sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability >>> mechanisms. A >>> lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and >>> necessary part of accountability in public life. >>> Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and >>> accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public >>> roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and >>> their >>> choices and values). >>> >>> 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 6 09:08:12 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:08:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> References: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <5A27CE80-3985-4343-B022-F998D0995ACF@Malcolm.id.au> On 06/02/2008, at 8:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Parminder wrote: >>> If you're just saying the civil society members don't report >>> enough of what's being said, you're right. We don't. >> That’s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not >> a minor >> post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand >> why we >> don’t. > > Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that > hasn't been reported by any of us. How about setting in place more of a procedure, rather than leaving reporting ad hoc as at present? For example, producing a regular fortnightly or monthly summary of discussions, and filling in any gaps in the reports of in-person meetings would be helpful. This doesn't let the Chairs of the Advisory Group off the hook for not formalising such procedures, but since it's within the power of the CS representatives to increase the transparency of the MAG independently, it confuses many that they haven't. -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 6 09:08:50 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:08:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: In-Reply-To: <20080206125645.GB5333@hserus.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <47A9A12F.7090502@wzb.eu> <20080206125645.GB5333@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47A9BF72.4060501@wzb.eu> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann [06/02/08 11:59 +0000]: >> If its mission gets extended, the IGF will most likely evolve over >> time. Couldn't formal tasks for the IGF be a way of evoking desirable >> change? > > Quite feasible. But when there is an existing structure and an existing > path to change / alter governance processes, trying to create a whole new > path isnt going to be productive Are you saying that there exists already a path to change regarding the IGF? Could you elaborate what you mean here? jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 6 09:01:32 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:31:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080206140203.6F2C2678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> >I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful. Yes, I agree lack of response from the list doesn’t help at all. But still basic commitments and responsibilities have to be kept up. And I am worried about the activity levels of this list, and seeking engagement of other members to see if anything can/ needs to be done about it. >The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. >Are we prepared? There was a very useful thread in November/December. No, we aren’t prepared. The list is not responding. And I have tried a lot. Yes, Adam you first proposed we start off in Nov/ Dec itself, but I/we thought people respond better a little closer to the event. And now I have been to trying to get members engaged with more than a month to go. So the response level has not to do with the time we started the process. But good you raised the issue. Gaps in co-cordinators activities need to be brought up. Not everything can be perfect, and not everything can be explained away, but as long as there are questiones being asked one gets reminded to ones accountabilities. >>Actually I am not sure if there has been any >>substantial issue that hasn't been reported by >>any of us. personally wouldn't have reported. Adam, I picked from your email that said, yes, we CS members do not report enough. There is this impression among many members and this has been discussed on this list a few times. And I don’t know what all went on the MAG list and closed deliberations to be able to speak about what was not reported. At least at face to face closed meeting of MAG some important issues get raised and discussed - we never had a summary report (within chatham rules) before the official summary reports started coming out. And I didn’t understand why would you 'personally' have not reported (even without ascriptions) the issues that become the great leak. Is the threat of withdrawal of financial support by one of the most important groups in MAG/ IGF in connection with whether some agenda will or will not be taken up not a big issue enough to report - whatever be ones personal viewpoint about it. I don’t now many other issues - but I did raise the issue of how public and community finance models disappeared from Access agenda - which should have disturbed a lot of people who keep telling us that CIRs is not an issue but access is - and nobody told me what happened inside the MAG that the issue was taken off..... There must be many such issues I don’t even know of...but the significance and nature of few of these is enough to allow one to make a general impression of non-reporting of substantial issues. And Jeanette, yes your email of early January was an important one to engage members of issues being taken up by the MAG. I had started the thread and didn’t want to come in with too much substantive stuff till other members came in. A bit later I did abstract some of the issues pointed out in your email and reposted them to try and get members to engage. So that problem remains. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:50 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder Cc: 'Carlos Afonso' Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers At 11:26 AM +0000 2/6/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Parminder wrote: >>>If you're just saying the civil society >>>members don't report enough of what's being >>>said, you're right. We don't. >> >>That¹s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a minor >>post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we >>don¹t. > >Actually I am not sure if there has been any >substantial issue that hasn't been reported by >any of us. That's true. Except the great leak, which I personally wouldn't have reported, at the time I felt as bound by normal netiquette we expect of private lists as much as any chatham house rule. But I think some more frequent reporting could be helpful. Even if it's just to say that nothing's happening. The MAG list is not busy, about 1400 messages since May 2006. Last 6 months: 44 in August, 112 September, 164 October, 136 November, 40 December, 39 January. During those 6 months there was one Geneva consultation and the Rio meeting, speaker discussions etc. Inevitable "me toos" and off topic stuff included of course. This document from the time names were put forward might be helpful See criteria. We weren't all or only nominated by the caucus, names the IGC put forward were: Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake From that list Adam Peake, Ken Lohento, Jeanette Hofmann, Qusai AlShatti, Robin Gross became MAG members, along with Titilayo Akinsanmi and Erick Iriarte and chair's special advisors, (Nitin) Wolfgang Kleinwächter and Jovan Kurbalija, and (Brazil) Carlos Afonso. (hope I'm not missing anyone!) >(Remember, it is not just Adam and me. We are >about 6 if we include Wolfgang, the special >adviser.) What I have noticed is that very often >there is not much of a response from the caucus. >For example, in early january I sent a long >email that listed all the issues under >discussion in the MAG including my own opinion >in cases where I thought it might matter. From >what I remember, Jeremy was the only one who >took up at least one of the issues. >Such a weak feedback is not very encouraging, is it? I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful. The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. Are we prepared? There was a very useful thread in November/December. Adam >jeanette > >> >>Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in the IGC's >>nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected >>members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely communicating >>the process details (which are important, and most have never communicated >>even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider the IGC >>and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at least one >>of their primary constituencies). >> >>Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG members >>who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about >>assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and >>related issues? >> >> I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators such >>accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private >>sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability mechanisms. A >>lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and >>necessary part of accountability in public life.  >>Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and >>accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public >>roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and their >>choices and values). >> >>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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 09:05:19 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:05:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: In-Reply-To: <47A9BCCF.8090904@rits.org.br> References: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> <47A9BCCF.8090904@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <013901c868c9$4fa3a8e0$eeeafaa0$@net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Come on, Suresh, the "enemy" in this case is not that big! :) > And we aren't a political party and nor is any of us into "armed struggle against imperialist oppressors" type stuff :) So, the scale fits, at least. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Feb 6 08:57:35 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:57:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: In-Reply-To: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> References: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> Message-ID: <47A9BCCF.8090904@rits.org.br> Come on, Suresh, the "enemy" in this case is not that big! :) --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Parminder, > > > > I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group > tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets > moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of > stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? > > > > I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole > lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, > people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? > It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together > into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the > Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated > to govern the country. > > > > In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be > able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and > releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby > within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions > on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within > DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from > DoC and reassign it to IGF. > > > > ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven > process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have > enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate > actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It > doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. > > > > In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont > help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. > Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to > help. > > > > suresh > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM > To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; > 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > Suresh > > > >> There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with > politically charged proposals > > > > But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political > views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > > > >> DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream > proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that > 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our > political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may > or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ > strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any > political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. > > > > Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do > you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close > to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly > trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of > IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly > so) emission control norms for themselves........ > > > > So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe > dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of > freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? > > > > So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. > And if we just don't bother say that as well. > > > > When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know > whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought > IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil > society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' > vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think > gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. > > > > So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough > to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we > really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. > > > > Parminder > > > > _____ > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy > Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of > civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some > cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a > substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. > > > > 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially > with politically charged proposals > > 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe > dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why > ????? > > This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, > would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any > conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this > discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. > > > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 09:06:14 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:06:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> > No, the extent of its international legal status is that it is a > meeting to carry forth a mandate agreed by governments over which the > UNGA has been granted oversight. But then the IETF is not > incorporated either, and we don't doubt its existence. .. and IETF has oversight over what, precisely? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 6 09:03:40 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:03:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> Message-ID: <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> On 06/02/2008, at 8:19 PM, McTim wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 2:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> >> There isn't any "IGF" as such > > This is a good point, is there an organisation registered anywhere? No, the extent of its international legal status is that it is a meeting to carry forth a mandate agreed by governments over which the UNGA has been granted oversight. But then the IETF is not incorporated either, and we don't doubt its existence. -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 09:09:05 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:09:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <47A9BF72.4060501@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <47A9A12F.7090502@wzb.eu> <20080206125645.GB5333@hserus.net> <47A9BF72.4060501@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <013b01c868c9$d6884870$8398d950$@net> > Are you saying that there exists already a path to change regarding the > IGF? Could you elaborate what you mean here? > jeanette As a lot of this discussion seems to revolve around reforming ICANN - to the complete exclusion of access, capacity building or other igov goals, my path to change comment was in the context of ICANN governance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 09:16:07 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:16:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <904739E6-D4AD-45D8-9282-B5D58654ECDD@ras.eu.org> References: <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <904739E6-D4AD-45D8-9282-B5D58654ECDD@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <013c01c868ca$d1b10160$75130420$@net> Some ITU activities in this area, of particular relevance to civ soc: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html - Botnet mitigation (focused on developing countries - policy, tech and civ soc) http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html - ITU national cybersecurity / CIIP self assessment srs > not the only one. ITU is of high importance too, most notably with > its 'Global Cybersecurity Agenda' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/ > cybersecurity/gca/) and its related 'High-Level Experts > Group' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/). Who are > this experts, what are they doing? Why are their meetings closed, > contrarily to all other meetings directly or indirectly related to > post-wsis activities (see http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/ > cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0?). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 09:56:26 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:26:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> Message-ID: <20080206145718.4CE2267898@smtp1.electricembers.net> Suresh I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the situation. The difference of view is about where this battle should be waged. >You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) the soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues. You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose, what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. Though ICANN has gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself. Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary changes. The new CEO rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy systems. ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it prove that its functions have great - present or future - political implications. So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and they should be equally enabled to participate - ICANN system does not reach out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet users which too it not what it is able to reach out to. And it is very comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not challenge its structural basis, and have issues with it that are relatively peripheral and contestations stays in these areas. Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social constituencies that are implicated in IG today - which is basically all people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet - which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops? What are the structures of participation of these people? And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an continued industry-led governance system - I have deep ideological problems with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case - or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of stakeholders implicated. A group of technical community members in their recent proposal (http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN out-reach / participation structures connect to. I don't see ICANN score well at all on this. I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in response to Jeanette's email >when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be productive. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Parminder, I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated to govern the country. In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from DoC and reassign it to IGF. ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to help. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly so) emission control norms for themselves........ So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. And if we just don't bother say that as well. When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 6 10:07:53 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:07:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080206145718.4CE2267898@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> <20080206145718.4CE2267898@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <016001c868d2$0d58bf80$280a3e80$@net> McTim's point about the IGF and handing over control to it should be very well taken in that case. GAC's increased involvement certainly didn't originate within ICANN - it originated in the governments that form GAC. There is no shortage of ways civ soc can go into ICANN .. industry led because industry seems to be the single largest participating constituency in ICANN. There is a lot that civil society can, and must, do within ICANN too. That ICANN seeks out people of a technical persuasion is mostly self selection. If civil society goes in, and provides reasoned, cogent - and apolitical - arguments, there's no reason why these cant be taken forward. The problem so far is that not all civil society people understand ICANN, or the issues that ICANN governs - or at least, may not speak the same language. It is this disconnect, this gap, that needs to be bridged first. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the situation. The difference of view is about where this battle should be waged. >You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) the soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues. You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose, what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. Though ICANN has gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself. Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary changes. The new CEO rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy systems. ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it prove that its functions have great - present or future - political implications. So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and they should be equally enabled to participate - ICANN system does not reach out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet users which too it not what it is able to reach out to. And it is very comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not challenge its structural basis, and have issues with it that are relatively peripheral and contestations stays in these areas. Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social constituencies that are implicated in IG today - which is basically all people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet - which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops? What are the structures of participation of these people? And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an continued industry-led governance system - I have deep ideological problems with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case - or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of stakeholders implicated. A group of technical community members in their recent proposal (http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN out-reach / participation structures connect to. I don't see ICANN score well at all on this. I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in response to Jeanette's email >when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be productive. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Parminder, I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated to govern the country. In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from DoC and reassign it to IGF. ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to help. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly so) emission control norms for themselves........ So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. And if we just don't bother say that as well. When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 6 15:16:59 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:16:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <5A27CE80-3985-4343-B022-F998D0995ACF@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20080206050141.4F28EA6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47A99961.3060404@wzb.eu> <5A27CE80-3985-4343-B022-F998D0995ACF@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <47AA15BB.4030907@wzb.eu> Yes, this sounds doable. But as Adam hinted already, you will be surprised how little there is to report over many months. Anyway, if others think this a good idea and the cs members on the MAG agree, we should do it. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 06/02/2008, at 8:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >>>> If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough >>>> of what's being said, you're right. We don't. >>> That’s the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a >>> minor >>> post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we >>> don’t. >> >> Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that >> hasn't been reported by any of us. > > How about setting in place more of a procedure, rather than leaving > reporting ad hoc as at present? For example, producing a regular > fortnightly or monthly summary of discussions, and filling in any gaps > in the reports of in-person meetings would be helpful. This doesn't let > the Chairs of the Advisory Group off the hook for not formalising such > procedures, but since it's within the power of the CS representatives to > increase the transparency of the MAG independently, it confuses many > that they haven't. > > --Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 6 16:05:11 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:05:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <200802061103.m16B3mqx012830@mx6.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802061103.m16B3mqx012830@mx6.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > to it.... and why ????? The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable to sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that performing this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 6 16:22:10 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:22:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Ah, the usual suspects offering the usual rationalizations. I am not sure how seriously anyone takes these comments from Suresh and McTim, but will try to do them justice and respond as if I were dealing with open-minded individuals > -----Original Message----- > > There isn't any "IGF" as such This is the same argument that was made against IETF by the inter-governmentalists back around 1995-6-7. At this point, we are well beyond this line of argumentation. No serious participant in Internet governance, not even ICANN, ISOC, or the US government, has any doubts about the existence of the IGF or its status. All participate actively in IGF and some donate money to it. The IGF is the outcome of an internationally negotiated, politically binding agreement, and is a recognized entity within the UN system. > This is a good point, is there an organisation registered anywhere? Is > it a UN body like the ITU (I assume the ITU has some kind of articles > of incorporation). Does the IGF have an of this kind of documentation? > Is it an .int? an NGO? offices? a phone number? letterhead? tax > numbers? anything? All these cavils about organizational status become pretty pathetic when one realizes that the IETF (unlike the IGF) lacks any of them. > 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be > achieved, especially with politically charged proposals I understand that this is meant to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any argument that an IGF process is unlikely to produce "consensus" could just as easily be applied to ICANN and its attempt to develop policy, could it not? If there is no consensus, there is no consensus. If there is, there is. Whether agreement happens or not depends on the issue being considered. In this case, if ICANN went to either extreme -- and was either extraordinarily satisfying to most involved groups or extraordiarily abusive -- there could be widespread agreement. > 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter > what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc Flat wrong. We are talking about the Joint Project Agreement. This is a form of oversight less important than the IANA contract, but it is still a form of overisight. The USG has made it clear that it can and will terminate the JPA when the conditions are right. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 16:39:36 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:39:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> References: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, > and won't be able to change this by operating within the IGF, > or submitting petitions and releasing position papers. You need > to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. Whatever > change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions on ICANN's > governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from > within DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to > wrest control from DoC and reassign it to IGF. To say that there is no chance for movement or change in the status of ICANN is flat wrong, and a measure of your own distance from the political realities of the situation. (by the way, did you know that there will be a new Presidential administration in the US by Sept. 2009?) It is rather odd to be lectured on tactics by someone who is both completely removed from any of the relevant political activity (you are not even part of icann meetings or constituencies) and by someone who does not really agree with our ultimate policy objectives. So rather than posturing as someone offering practical advice on how to achieve our objectives, why not just admit that you have different policy objectives? (what they are is not clear, except perhaps support for the status quo) If you want to discuss the value of the status quo, let's do so! It will be a far more productive discussion. Tell us why a US Commerce Dept Agreement with ICANN specifying a dozen or so policy priorities is a good thing. Or tell us why the JPA should go away in Sept, 2009 with nothing else to replace it. Offer us a critique of the specific reforms IGP proposed for improving ICANN's accountability (or admit that you haven't read the comments, which is probably the case). Tell us whether you favor or oppose the specific changes in ICANN's independent review process proposed by the OneWorld Trust. Tell us what you think of ICANN's proposed "no confidence vote" proposal, and whether it is better or worse than the one IGP proposed. Those would be worthwhile exchanges. What you've contributed so far, is not. -------------- 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 Wed Feb 6 16:42:05 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:42:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'McTim' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: > Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > No, the extent of its international legal status is that it is a > > meeting to carry forth a mandate agreed by governments over > which the > > UNGA has been granted oversight. But then the IETF is not > > incorporated either, and we don't doubt its existence. > > .. and IETF has oversight over what, precisely? Internet standards. A damn sight more important than ICANN. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 6 16:49:36 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:49:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <200802061457.m16EvHOA024233@mx3.syr.edu> References: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> <200802061457.m16EvHOA024233@mx3.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it prove that its functions have great - present or future - political implications. So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). Parminder: Don't buy into the false dichotomy. You can and should participate directly in ICANN, but that doesn't mean you can't also participate in Internet governance from outside via IGF and other mechanisms. Your organization is eligible to join the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization, which sets policy for domain names. If you are near New Delhi go to the NCUC and ICANN meeting next week and get acquainted with the civil society activists in it. -------------- 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 Feb 6 17:16:53 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:16:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802061103.m16B3mqx012830@mx6.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change in the nature of the forum. Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At least it does not seem that way to me. a. On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > to it.... and why ????? > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable to > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that performing > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 6 17:43:50 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:43:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: Avri, I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a recognition of what de facto is already happening. ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily participated in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions. At those sessions, people have made positive and negative comments, and offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN. So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>> Hi, I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change in the nature of the forum. Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At least it does not seem that way to me. a. On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > to it.... and why ????? > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable to > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that performing > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Feb 6 20:53:04 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:53:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow, Lee, bold statement: "not subordinated to anyone". So I guess the zillions of pages written on how and why Icann should free itself from the US government was actually about how many camels fit on a pinhead... Grande descoberta! --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Lee McKnight" To: , Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:43:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Avri, > > I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a > recognition of what de facto is already happening. > > ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily > participated > in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions. > > At those sessions, people have made positive and negative comments, > and > offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN. > > So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project > ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping > ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>> > and an ICANN volunteer, but writing from my own perspective> > > Hi, > > I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do > with > laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a > > safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, > including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN > to > the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a > > decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change > in > the nature of the forum. > > Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, > but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to > be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable > step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it > is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At > least > it does not seem that way to me. > > a. > > > > On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > > to it.... and why ????? > > > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable > to > > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that > performing > > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 6 20:30:55 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:30:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080206140203.6F2C2678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080206140203.6F2C2678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there before and I missed it): "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the MAG's veiled world two years ago. -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 6 22:31:06 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:31:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: OK, OK. What I meant was 'not subordinated to anyone by IGP's proposal, that ICANN has not already voluntarily agreed should play an oversight role.' And yeah, as Milton noted, there is that IANA contract, which doesn't go away just because of IGF having a soft, community-agreed, oversight function. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ca at rits.org.br 02/06/08 8:53 PM >>> Wow, Lee, bold statement: "not subordinated to anyone". So I guess the zillions of pages written on how and why Icann should free itself from the US government was actually about how many camels fit on a pinhead... Grande descoberta! --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Lee McKnight" To: , Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:43:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Avri, > > I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a > recognition of what de facto is already happening. > > ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily > participated > in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions. > > At those sessions, people have made positive and negative comments, > and > offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN. > > So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project > ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping > ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>> > and an ICANN volunteer, but writing from my own perspective> > > Hi, > > I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do > with > laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a > > safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, > including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN > to > the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a > > decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change > in > the nature of the forum. > > Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, > but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to > be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable > step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it > is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At > least > it does not seem that way to me. > > a. > > > > On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > > to it.... and why ????? > > > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable > to > > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that > performing > > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 23:05:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:35:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <016001c868d2$0d58bf80$280a3e80$@net> Message-ID: <20080207040549.3A9BB67824@smtp1.electricembers.net> Suresh >That ICANN seeks out people of a technical persuasion is mostly self selection. If civil society goes in, and provides reasoned, cogent - and apolitical - >arguments, there's no reason why these cant be taken forward. I think we could be closing in to understand our differences, though without resolving them. You said at ICANN one needs to make apolitical arguments !! But I and my organization are very clear that we are into political work. I wish mostly to make political arguments. And you do say that such arguments will not be given attention in ICANN forums. And, well, about 'reasoned and cogent argument' I m not sure who will judge my comments for these qualities, and using what parameters. Now, we must understand that our interest is in the political aspects of ICANN functioning, not its narrowly technical aspects. To the extent that ICANN seeks larger political base - legitimacy of representing the interests of a larger set of constituencies - its outreach is (or is supposed to be) a political matter. On the other hand, it can also be seeking a larger outreach of technical advice and inputs in which case the outreach is more of an IETF kind of loose networking. It will do both sides - the political and the technical - a lot of good if they understand and appreciate the difference well. As much as IETF will like to keep its deliberation 'apolitical' and consisting of reasoned and cogent arguments as per the normal expectations of a scientific/ technical community, IGF, and I dare say IGC (as an self-professed advocacy group) will like to keep the primacy of the socio-political over technical in its functioning. Such specialization helps both sides - even if the distinction is to a good extent conceptual. Those who are technical people are as much entitled to political views as anyone else - but only as much, even if the area has more technical content than other areas - and it will be very useful if they can appreciate the difference between giving a political input and a technical one. Some people naively confuse the two - and other people, and organizations - when it serves their political interest - do it deliberately. ICANN must separate the two aspects of its functioning - till such time the political/ public policy part is taken away from it by putting it under the oversight of an appropriate global public policy body or system. The latter is something ICANN resists tooth and nail, on the other hand, it wont itself accept the largely political nature of its outreach and stakeholder involvement activity and make due processes for it. And so if CS and people do not 'speak the same language' as ICAAN does, in the task of political legitimization that ICANN seeks it is the job of the ICANN to present issues in people's and CS's language and not the other way around. As I said the technical deliberations are a different ballgame. I know that some amount of technical overview knowledge is still required, and be assured that we how seek political participation do have that. > disconnect, this gap, that needs to be bridged first. Now, if we are able to develop a common understanding of the nature of the 'gap' we can try to do something to bridge it. The offer of IGF as the ideal forum for ICANN for political outreach, stakeholder involvement and seeking wider legitimacy has been made precisely for that purpose. Political outreach, and I know I am repeating this, is not made on the terms of the institution that seeks political involvement, but on the terms of wider constituencies whose involvement is sought. These are simple political lessons. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity McTim's point about the IGF and handing over control to it should be very well taken in that case. GAC's increased involvement certainly didn't originate within ICANN - it originated in the governments that form GAC. There is no shortage of ways civ soc can go into ICANN .. industry led because industry seems to be the single largest participating constituency in ICANN. There is a lot that civil society can, and must, do within ICANN too. That ICANN seeks out people of a technical persuasion is mostly self selection. If civil society goes in, and provides reasoned, cogent - and apolitical - arguments, there's no reason why these cant be taken forward. The problem so far is that not all civil society people understand ICANN, or the issues that ICANN governs - or at least, may not speak the same language. It is this disconnect, this gap, that needs to be bridged first. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the situation. The difference of view is about where this battle should be waged. >You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) the soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues. You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose, what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. Though ICANN has gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself. Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary changes. The new CEO rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy systems. ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it prove that its functions have great - present or future - political implications. So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and they should be equally enabled to participate - ICANN system does not reach out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet users which too it not what it is able to reach out to. And it is very comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not challenge its structural basis, and have issues with it that are relatively peripheral and contestations stays in these areas. Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social constituencies that are implicated in IG today - which is basically all people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet - which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops? What are the structures of participation of these people? And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an continued industry-led governance system - I have deep ideological problems with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case - or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of stakeholders implicated. A group of technical community members in their recent proposal (http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN out-reach / participation structures connect to. I don't see ICANN score well at all on this. I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in response to Jeanette's email >when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be productive. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Parminder, I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated to govern the country. In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from DoC and reassign it to IGF. ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to help. suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Suresh > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly so) emission control norms for themselves........ So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. And if we just don't bother say that as well. When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with politically charged proposals 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why ????? This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Feb 6 23:27:28 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:27:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AA88B0.7060406@rits.org.br> Fine, OK. frt rgds --c.a. Lee McKnight wrote: > OK, OK. > > What I meant was 'not subordinated to anyone by IGP's proposal, that > ICANN has not already voluntarily agreed should play an oversight role.' > > > And yeah, as Milton noted, there is that IANA contract, which doesn't go > away just because of IGF having a soft, community-agreed, oversight > function. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> ca at rits.org.br 02/06/08 8:53 PM >>> > Wow, Lee, bold statement: "not subordinated to anyone". So I guess the > zillions of pages written on how and why Icann should free itself from > the US government was actually about how many camels fit on a pinhead... > > Grande descoberta! > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Lee McKnight" > To: , > Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:43:50 -0500 > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > >> Avri, >> >> I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a >> recognition of what de facto is already happening. >> >> ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily >> participated >> in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions. >> >> At those sessions, people have made positive and negative comments, >> and >> offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN. >> >> So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project >> ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping >> ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>> >> > and an ICANN volunteer, but writing from my own perspective> >> >> Hi, >> >> I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do >> with >> laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a >> >> safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, >> including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN >> to >> the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a >> >> decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change >> in >> the nature of the forum. >> >> Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, >> but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to >> be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable >> step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it >> is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At >> least >> it does not seem that way to me. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Some perceptive comments, Parminder. >>> >>>> So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable >>>> to it.... and why ????? >>> The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN >>> is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every >>> morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable >> to >>> sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that >> performing >>> this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life >>> for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. >>> Milton Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>> ------------------------------ >>> Internet Governance Project: >>> http://internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 6 23:43:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:13:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47AA15BB.4030907@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080207044425.2B5F7A6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Yes, Jeremy, we shd put a clearer set of processes in this regard. And this is the purpose of this round of discussions on the role CS members can and should play inside the MAG. I am not doing it for mud slinging or anything. And Jeanette, I agree when you say >But as Adam hinted already, you will be >surprised how little there is to report over many months. But why there isnt much activity in MAG. Is the MAG ever worried about whether IGF is carrying out its mandate or not.. do they ever discuss that or not. Are they worried about that people now largely think of IGF as ineffectual, and not having met its best expectations, and not doing all it should and could have done.... does this worry them? If not why? Do our CS MAG members at all bring up these issues at all. Or do they, and no one engages with them. We need to know. Does MAG only concerns itself with IGF meeting program management functions. Why wouldn't they discuss the role and expectations from the IGF. When so much is happening of social and political significance around the Internet is MAG ever concerned that global internet related public policy gaps have been becoming more even more significant post WSIS, and that even the WSIS expectations about some institutional development in this area has had zero progress. Do they deliberate about what role IGF has in all this. We need to know why the present dispensation - the MAG etc - is so smug about IGF. And do CS MAG members raise these issues. If so, what response do they get. Who has taken this political decision that the present non-performing style of the IGF is exactly what it should have been. Is any dissidence voiced against this. Or is there more or less one voice in the MAG about these issues... We all sit here in the dark without any clue about what is happening about, and in, the only institutional arrangement in the area of IG which has come out of the expensive exercise of the WSIS, and we are told - well mostly everything has been reported, and mostly nothing is happening. Is there a failure of CS in all this.... even if CS often has less than most other groups, do we raise our voice enough, and often enough, because being vocal and assertive is the only weapon we have got. Or do we become different in the plush interiors of institutions than we are out in the open spaces which are the natural grounds of CS. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers Yes, this sounds doable. But as Adam hinted already, you will be surprised how little there is to report over many months. Anyway, if others think this a good idea and the cs members on the MAG agree, we should do it. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 06/02/2008, at 8:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >>>> If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough >>>> of what's being said, you're right. We don't. >>> That's the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a >>> minor >>> post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we >>> don't. >> >> Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that >> hasn't been reported by any of us. > > How about setting in place more of a procedure, rather than leaving > reporting ad hoc as at present? For example, producing a regular > fortnightly or monthly summary of discussions, and filling in any gaps > in the reports of in-person meetings would be helpful. This doesn't let > the Chairs of the Advisory Group off the hook for not formalising such > procedures, but since it's within the power of the CS representatives to > increase the transparency of the MAG independently, it confuses many > that they haven't. > > --Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 23:44:49 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:44:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080206145718.4CE2267898@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> <20080206145718.4CE2267898@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, On Feb 6, 2008 5:56 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Suresh > > > > I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that > should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the > situation. The difference of view is about where this battle should be > waged. > > > > > >You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. > > > > The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per > what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always > wise to also say give it up to whom or what… and next to a ICANN floating > free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) Who is "us"? AFAIK, the IGC has NOT reached consensus that an "ICANN floating free from any political accountability" is not acceptable. It would be the ideal situation in my mind, and I think in several other folks minds IIRC. Avri's is directly on point in her latest mail: "The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change in the nature of the forum." I agree also that the IGF is not ready for such a change. the > soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. > > > > As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues. > > > > You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will > come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of > power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose, > what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. You are correct about that, "we" caused them (we being all the folks who participated in WSIS negotiations and who kept putting names and numbers on the table.) Though ICANN has > gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if > indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN > one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself. > > > > Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary > changes. The new CEO AFAIK, Paul Twomey is still CEO of ICANN. rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an > industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance > systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of > almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me > it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy > systems. > > > > ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination > function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and > influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it > prove that its functions have great – present or future – political > implications. It SHOULD only do narrow technical coordination, however, the folk who want it to do more have forced it to do more So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach > systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions > and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of > technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). > > > > Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and > they should be equally enabled to participate – ICANN system does not reach > out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet > users which too it not what it is able to reach out to. Here is where I am lost, on one hand there are lots of folk who complain about the bloated budget and 20 US cents per domain, and on the other hand there are folk who complain that ICANN doesn't do enough. I suggest that if you want ICANN to reach out to every single person and poll them on how they want the Internet governed (even those who don't know what the Internet is) the budget would grow by an order of magnitude or more! And it is very > comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not > challenge its structural basis, tell that to the NRO! and have issues with it that are relatively > peripheral and contestations stays in these areas. > > > > Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN > build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social > constituencies that are implicated in IG today – which is basically all > people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or > indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet – > which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops? > What are the structures of participation of these people? > > > > And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an > continued industry-led governance system – I have deep ideological problems > with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case > - or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose > viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of > stakeholders implicated. > > > > A group of technical community members in their recent proposal > (http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a > useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and > diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." > One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN > out-reach / participation structures connect to. I don't see ICANN score > well at all on this. > > > > I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may > perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in > response to Jeanette's email > > > > >when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter > governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be > productive. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy > Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > > > Parminder, > > > > I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group > tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets > moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of > stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? > > > > I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole > lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force – petty rulers, > people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? > It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together > into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the > Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated > to govern the country. > > > > In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be > able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and > releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby > within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions > on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within > DoC – you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from > DoC and reassign it to IGF. > > > > ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven > process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have > enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate > actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It > doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. > > > > In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont > help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. > Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to > help. > > > > suresh > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM > To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L > Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > Suresh > > > > > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with > politically charged proposals > > > > But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political > views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > > > > > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream > proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that > 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our > political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may > or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ > strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any > political views on this matter at all let that be stated too… > > > > Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them… do > you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close > to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly > trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of > IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly > so) emission control norms for themselves……………….. > > > > So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe > dreams…. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of > freedom fighters in early decades of the last century… pipe dreams? > > > > So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want…. > And if we just don't bother say that as well. > > > > When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know > whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought > IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil > society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' > vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think > gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. > > > > So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough > to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we > really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy > Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > There isn't any "IGF" as such – only some extraordinarily vocal sections of > civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some > cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a > substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. > > > > 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with > politically charged proposals > > 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream > proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why > ????? > > This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, > would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any > conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this > discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. > > > > 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 > > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 6 23:52:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:22:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there >before and I missed it): >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. No, it wasnt there before. And it's a great development. In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy to be proved wrong. It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would amount to less transparency. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there before and I missed it): "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the MAG's veiled world two years ago. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 7 00:35:10 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:05:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080207053559.8020D6788A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri >I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with >laziness. I agree. For many, it is a considered decision. And the fact that it is only the view of some people and groups really, but has got expressed in the way IGF/ MAG functions would be characterized in social and political theory as 'capture'. (I am very afraid to use such terms which are normal to be used for any institution in socio-political theory because some people tend too easily to read 'extremism' in my contributions.) > only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers Sure, I would like to be ICANN's peer. As it can make decisions that impact me, I want to be able to make decisions that impact ICANN. Unfortunately I am not able to do so. So, this goody goody language of peer-ship may not be all that valid. We too easily avoid pulling in the factor of power relationship in our analysis as if by ignoring it the factor would go away. > This would seem to me to be a radical change in >the nature of the forum. Yes, a change from what some people have unilaterally decided what IGF should be. In my earlier email in responding to Milton's I have sought to draw member's attention towards numerous parts of TA whereby it looks IGF is not what it is supposed to be. But even if try to discuss this, as we tried to do in Rio, and as being proposed by the IGP proposal, we are told that we are diverting positive energies and should be more forward looking. >Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, >but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to >be Depending on whether we are happy with the status quo and how badly we want things to change we can take a stock - this or that - view, or else take a more nuanced view. Everything - an empowered MAG or not, recs or not, etc - has been cast in a watertight this-or-that fashion, which, I beg to say, is more divisive than the views of those who seek change. So, either IGF is a decision making body - against which I think the main logic is that that would make it amenable to capture by the governments - it - or it is just a meeting place. There is no in-between. So when imaginative and constructive mid-way suggestions are offered - like a few we tried to offer around Athens, and the present IGP proposal - it is not even considered in view of the IGF-cannot-become-decision-making-body dogma. We should accept that this merely means that we are happy with the present decision-making (meaning power exercising) bodies (in this case ICANN, USG and such) and don't want to explore new ones. Others who seek seeking change are not happy with the present power exercising bodies - on account of legitimacy, capture by special interests etc - and want to explore different options. Methods of a soft spread of power, having multiple nodes with greater connect to a larger constituency are some such option that are being sought. The present IGP proposal of an arrangement between ICANN and IGF is one of them. I did point to the fact of TA's injunction of annual performance reports for ICANN and others, and that references to interfacing with ICANN etc and assessing their adherence to WSIS principles are clearly indicated as a part of the mandate of IGF. So, why would we not think of these points.. well, we may not, and thats fine. As long as we accept that this itself is a matter of political prioritization that we may do, and not a neutral good-for-everyone take. > it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. One, I am not sure what it means. Two, the other issue still remains whether or not we want IGF to take on such a role, and if so how are we contributing to make IGF ready for it. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:47 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Hi, I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change in the nature of the forum. Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. At least it does not seem that way to me. a. On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > to it.... and why ????? > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable to > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that performing > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 7 03:18:02 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:18:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <20080206113829.EECD267824@smtp1.electricembers.net> <010d01c868b6$26099d40$721cd7c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080207081802.GA13536@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [06/02/08 16:39 -0500]: >To say that there is no chance for movement or change in the status of >ICANN is flat wrong, and a measure of your own distance from the Call me an external observer. Just because I dont play in the same political shell games that you play, and think are of enormous significance doesnt mean I dont keep tabs on these. >political realities of the situation. (by the way, did you know that >there will be a new Presidential administration in the US by Sept. >2009?) Yeah. And the influences on DoC are going to change just how, because you'll get Hilary, Obama or McCain in the white house? And your IGP position papers (sorry, your IGP innuendoes, I should have said) are going to make one whit of difference just how, with a democrat administration in power? ' >It is rather odd to be lectured on tactics by someone who is both >completely removed from any of the relevant political activity (you are The politics you are playing are in the sort of sandlot where there's far far more talk than action. And you're not going to get much traction from anybody else. And democrat, republican or hell, even ross perot in the white house wont change things any. I'm very sorry to prick your bubble but no, what you're thinking of is not going to fly. Ever. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 7 03:21:10 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:21:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [06/02/08 16:42 -0500]: >> > incorporated either, and we don't doubt its existence. >> >> .. and IETF has oversight over what, precisely? > >Internet standards. A damn sight more important than ICANN. They set standards. But are those standards enforceable? And where do you find mandatory acceptance of those standards, except by consensus in the technical community? I'd sell you the bay bridge, Milton, but I'm afraid you'd actually buy it from me. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Feb 7 03:25:57 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:25:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 07/02/2008, at 5:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Milton L Mueller [06/02/08 16:42 -0500]: >>> > incorporated either, and we don't doubt its existence. >>> .. and IETF has oversight over what, precisely? >> >> Internet standards. A damn sight more important than ICANN. > > They set standards. But are those standards enforceable? And where > do you > find mandatory acceptance of those standards, except by consensus in > the > technical community? What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is also soft? I really don't see the distinction. -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 7 03:30:40 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:30:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> Jeremy Malcolm [07/02/08 17:25 +0900]: > What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise > soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a > counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is > also soft? I really don't see the distinction. Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, trust me. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 04:01:32 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:01:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <20080206140203.6F2C2678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there >before and I missed it): > >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > >Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation >that were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. The second batch of messages from the advisory group list is available The thread continues and will be updated in a week. There's a new section on the forum for such updates. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 7 04:20:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:50:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080207092106.CDFAAE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> >Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, >trust me. I think we only be dabbling in semantic nuances here. As long as we agree with the possibility - whether of soft governance or of soft oversight, it should be fine, isnt it. Some would think if someone proposed IGF did soft governance that would be more substantial than soft oversight... but either is fine, when the actual proposed content of it has been laid out. BTW, the UN ECOSOC Commission on science and tech for development does soft oversight on all post-WSIS activities of UN bodies including IGF by laying out a formal reporting mechanism, and the ability to ask/ raise questions. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:01 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Jeremy Malcolm [07/02/08 17:25 +0900]: > What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise > soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a > counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is > also soft? I really don't see the distinction. Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, trust me. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 7 04:27:34 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:27:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <20080207092106.CDFAAE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> <20080207092106.CDFAAE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080207092734.GA15236@hserus.net> Parminder [07/02/08 14:50 +0530]: > > >>Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, >>trust me. > >I think we only be dabbling in semantic nuances here. As long as we agree >with the possibility - whether of soft governance or of soft oversight, it >should be fine, isnt it. No. My concern here is mission creep, if that explains it better. We need our opinions listened to - but if IGF tries to get judgement or decision making powers, or is perceived to get them, you may not find it as easy to proceed, or as feasible to carry out if you do get those. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 7 04:40:12 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:40:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/7/08 2:30 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that > were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is > good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the > IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much > more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the > MAG's veiled world two years ago. While I agree that more communication and transparency would have been good two years ago, the limitations on what the IGF could be were established offline and prior to the AG's formation. As such, probably all we missed were the echoes of prior understandings rather than some de novo constitutional decisionmaking. On 2/7/08 6:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Avri > >> I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with >> laziness. > > I agree. For many, it is a considered decision. And the fact that it is only > the view of some people and groups really, but has got expressed in the way > IGF/ MAG functions would be characterized in social and political theory as > 'capture'. (I am very afraid to use such terms which are normal to be used > for any institution in socio-political theory because some people tend too > easily to read 'extremism' in my contributions.) Capture sort of implies that a potentially independent decisionmaking body gets populated and taken over by powerful constituencies, but many of the ones that matter are not in the room, except as absent presences. I'd suggest that the relevant theories here concern structural power more than capture. While I sympathize with IGP's efforts to identify potential sites of external accountability in a post-JPA environment, I agree with Avri that the IGF would have to become a very different beast in order to play the designated role. Not only is that highly unlikely, but pushing for it could leave IGF in an even shakier position. On the other hand, shedding some sunlight on the dividing lines might be healthier in the aggregate than leaving things in the shadows, even if not for the IGF. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 05:13:12 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:13:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> Message-ID: Apologies for the lack of completeness in my previous mail, it was a draft which was sent by fat-fingeredness. On Feb 7, 2008 11:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm [07/02/08 17:25 +0900]: > > What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise > > soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a > > counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is > > also soft? I really don't see the distinction. > > Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, > trust me. ACK. In addition, the IETF (or any 3rd party for that matter) has NEVER tried to have ICANN or any other net body "overseen" by the IETF. So nice try Milton, but no cigar. It's not just me and Suresh, Avri weighed in with her objections as well. As far as the "usual suspects" crack goes, I think we (and others on this list) are centrists in the Internet community, and I submit it is not the "usual suspects" who are the fringe element in this discussion. If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 7 05:56:49 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:56:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McT, On 2/7/08 11:13 AM, "McTim" wrote: > If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact > that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the > unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my > off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! How could they be taking us seriously if they're imputing to us positions we've not taken based on presumed motivations we've not expressed? Seems to me the situation is precisely the opposite, and more like Swiftboating. Cheers, 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 7 06:10:41 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:10:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: > >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there  >>before and I missed it): > >>"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are  >>available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how  >>this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it  >>is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > >No, it wasnt there before. And it's a great development. > >In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is >that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the >CS members in the MAG. Is not correct. >At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy >to be proved wrong. I don't know that as a young boy you did not torture kittens. I would be very happy to be proved wrong. (whatever, just stop this negative silliness please.) >It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. It's been a bit of an evolutionary process. We began with expectations from WSIS and WGIG etc, and progressed since then. A lot of people want more openness (and fairness, and for the MAG to be functional as a multistakeholder group.) Please coordinate some input for the consultation that's a couple of weeks away. Deadline for any comments being included in the synthesis paper missed (again), but never mind. Thanks, Adam >And we are so >keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the >CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, >I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, >wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have >any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would >amount to less transparency. > >Parminder > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there  >before and I missed it): > >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are  >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how  >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it  >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > >Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that  >were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is  >good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the  >IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much  >more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the  >MAG's veiled world two years ago. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 7 06:12:05 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:12:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >McT, > >On 2/7/08 11:13 AM, "McTim" wrote: > >> If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact >> that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the >> unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my >> off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! > >How could they be taking us seriously if they're imputing to us positions >we've not taken based on presumed motivations we've not expressed? Seems to >me the situation is precisely the opposite, and more like Swiftboating. People are perhaps confusing IGC and IGP. Adam >Cheers, > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 06:53:19 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:53:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: Suresh, Sorry to prick your bubble, but the IGF has already left the station, so to speak. It is on a trajectory that takes it right where we are looking forward to, where it is more grown up and has a mature, collegial, and critical role vis a vis ICANN and other actors. I do agree that there is an inside-the-beltway element that must be addressed, which as you may note is to whom the IGP proposal is made, ie NTIA. Face time with the relevant DoC folks is a been there and done that thing for us, which I agree does need to be done regularly still to help get more oomph behind the proposal. But there is no need to lecture us on how to play the game. As you may now have noticed, the ball is in play ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/07/08 3:18 AM >>> Milton L Mueller [06/02/08 16:39 -0500]: >To say that there is no chance for movement or change in the status of >ICANN is flat wrong, and a measure of your own distance from the Call me an external observer. Just because I dont play in the same political shell games that you play, and think are of enormous significance doesnt mean I dont keep tabs on these. >political realities of the situation. (by the way, did you know that >there will be a new Presidential administration in the US by Sept. >2009?) Yeah. And the influences on DoC are going to change just how, because you'll get Hilary, Obama or McCain in the white house? And your IGP position papers (sorry, your IGP innuendoes, I should have said) are going to make one whit of difference just how, with a democrat administration in power? ' >It is rather odd to be lectured on tactics by someone who is both >completely removed from any of the relevant political activity (you are The politics you are playing are in the sort of sandlot where there's far far more talk than action. And you're not going to get much traction from anybody else. And democrat, republican or hell, even ross perot in the white house wont change things any. I'm very sorry to prick your bubble but no, what you're thinking of is not going to fly. Ever. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 7 07:32:54 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:32:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47AAFA76.3070408@wzb.eu> > In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is > that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the > CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy > to be proved wrong. > > It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so > keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the > CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, > I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, > wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have > any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would > amount to less transparency. Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really everything! A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same stance as China in that meeting. What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil society position. jeanette > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there > before and I missed it): > > "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are > available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how > this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it > is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that > were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is > good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the > IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much > more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the > MAG's veiled world two years ago. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 07:38:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:08:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080207123851.3E813A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> >>In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is >>that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the >>CS members in the MAG. >Is not correct. >>At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy >>to be proved wrong. >I don't know that as a young boy you did not >torture kittens. I would be very happy to be >proved wrong. (whatever, just stop this negative >silliness please.) Adam, This is a part of a series of emails in which you and Jeannette claimed that you have been reporting most of MAG occurrences and not much has been happening there. This gives me good reason to believe that if CS members would have been doing something on opening up MAGs deliberation to the outside world, you would have reported something on that. Isnt it logical to think so. Added to it is the fact that when numerous times the topic of MAG's lack of transparency was discussed on this list either there was no participation of CS MAG members (and this would have been an excellent opportunity to give details about CS MAG members activity on this issue within MAG, if one would have missed doing it otherwise) or the comments were not too much pro more opening up. >Please coordinate some input for the consultation >that's a couple of weeks away. Deadline for any >comments being included in the synthesis paper >missed (again), but never mind I am trying to, to my best ability. But as you would have noticed the list is not sufficiently alive to the issue. I did start separate email threads for both MAG renewal (paraphrasing the involved issues as well) and comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi. BTW, IT for Change did make a contribution to the MAG renewal issue. See http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0 . So it is not that I in my personal capacity am not engaged with the issue. But this and Jeremy's and the latest one from Afonso are the only IGC member contribution (and there is the earlier email from Jeanette, and from Ian Peter), and I will be happy to abstract a text from these to put for seeking consensus. But I think that the set of viewpoints and the breadth of discussion may not be enough for me to do this. But if you think if shd be done I can. You may also add your viewpoints here. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] communicating with our peers > >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there  >>before and I missed it): > >>"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are  >>available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how  >>this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it  >>is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > >No, it wasnt there before. And it's a great development. > >In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is >that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the >CS members in the MAG. Is not correct. >At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy >to be proved wrong. I don't know that as a young boy you did not torture kittens. I would be very happy to be proved wrong. (whatever, just stop this negative silliness please.) >It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. It's been a bit of an evolutionary process. We began with expectations from WSIS and WGIG etc, and progressed since then. A lot of people want more openness (and fairness, and for the MAG to be functional as a multistakeholder group.) Please coordinate some input for the consultation that's a couple of weeks away. Deadline for any comments being included in the synthesis paper missed (again), but never mind. Thanks, Adam >And we are so >keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the >CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, >I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, >wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have >any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would >amount to less transparency. > >Parminder > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there  >before and I missed it): > >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are  >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how  >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it  >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > >Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that  >were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is  >good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the  >IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much  >more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the  >MAG's veiled world two years ago. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 07:58:46 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:28:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47AAFA76.3070408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080207125915.5E562678AF@smtp1.electricembers.net> >And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual >brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request >for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an >uncompromising civil society position. >jeanette No, I don't think a simple open-everything-up is the right and necessary thing to do from CS point of view. Though, generally, CS is almost always seen as promoting more transparency than gov or private sector members. I know that it can compromise the decision-making capacity of a very politically diverse group if every word that is uttered is open to everyone to know and scrutinize. Members then tend to play to the gallery, that is, to the narrow interpretation of the recognized positions of their constituencies. This makes even starting to work towards compromise positions difficult. And of course, it is unethical to disclose discussions about specific individuals like when considering people for speaking slots. However, there are still a couple of issues here. (1) most important of these is that the above cannot be taken as a complete excuse for no movement towards openness at all. Half-way possibilities like those being instituted now on UN SG's instructions were needed to be explored. And one would expect CS members to be most active in this, because whatever be practical necessities lack of transparency is supposed to worry them most. Now, as I have said a few time in my earlier emails is that CS MAG members never appeared very enthusiastic in exploring and pushing for these transparency measures. (2) secondly, the main reason against complete transparency (apart from discussions about individuals, which no one is asking for to be made public) is its effect on decision making capability of a group. But MAG hardly takes any decision, and you have often said that you don't see it as a decision making body. So maybe then there never was anything to lose with some transparency. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is > that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the > CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy > to be proved wrong. > > It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so > keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the > CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, > I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, > wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have > any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would > amount to less transparency. Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really everything! A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same stance as China in that meeting. What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil society position. jeanette > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there > before and I missed it): > > "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are > available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how > this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it > is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that > were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is > good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the > IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much > more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the > MAG's veiled world two years ago. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Feb 7 08:06:03 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:06:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7B5FA8D2-AD4F-45AC-9821-95B4F1C609AE@Malcolm.id.au> On 07/02/2008, at 7:13 PM, McTim wrote: > ACK. > > In addition, the IETF (or any 3rd party for that matter) has NEVER > tried to have ICANN or any other net body "overseen" by the IETF. So > nice try Milton, but no cigar. Then just go up a level, and consider the IAB which oversees the IETF. > If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact > that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the > unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my > off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! Not multilateral; multi-stakeholder. And it's not in a list mail, it's in paragraph 29 of the Tunis Agenda. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 7 08:07:24 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:07:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] communicating with our peers References: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47AAFA76.3070408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425950@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, Jeanette is right. There is no conspiracy or a dislinkage from MAG members and its constituencies. I also argued during the IGF consultations in Febeurary 2007 in Geneva in favour of more openess and transparency. My proposal was to allow "silent onlookers" as we had in some sessions of WGIG. Under such a regime only members would have a right to talk in the discussion, but non-members can always individually talk to members so that their position can be transported directly to the debate. This allows to work in a smaller group. Otherwise you blockade any progress. There will be no free and creative discussions within groups of more than 100 members. This is a practical and not a political question. Human wisdom tells this. One condition for such a regime would have been also that the silent onlookers should follow the Chatham House rules. In WGIG this worked. After the second meeting to number of "silent onlookers" went down but more trust was created. A majority of MAG members (mainly from governments) rejected my proposal in February. However as far as I remember, it was the CS reps in the MAG who supported it and agreed finally under the conditions that the issue should come back at an appropriate time. So again, no conspiracy. This is the CS position under the At Large label in ICANN since 1999 when CS/ALM people critisized the closed sessions of the GAC and under WSIS since PrepCom I. In Geneva in June 2002 - after the opening ceremony of WSIS I - CS (and PS) people were removed from the conference hall in the GICC and chaos emerged with people knocking loudly on the closed doors while the security was blocking access and governmental representatives were starting a discussion among themselves behind closed doors. It was a big step from Geneva 2002 to the Geneva 2008 (from turmoils to trust, from input to impact). This is an evaluation with some ups and downs, but the directions is clear. And its an innovation in global diplomacy not welcomed by many governments. To be frank neither China nor Russia had been on the forefront fighting for transparency and openeess (as Jeanette remembers correctly). The Russia delegate asked in the closed May 2007 consultations, why all these non-governmental people are sitting here in the room and where they are coming from. He was a newbie and talked about his excellent experiences in the ITU. I was a special target of his intervention because I asked the Russian delegate whether he wants to bring IG under a telecommunication oversight regime as excersiced by the ITU or whether he supports the end-to-end principle, bottom up policy development processes and multistakhoderism for IG. One cirtical point of the debate is obviously that MAG CS members should report back more regularily (within the Chatham House rules). But there was only litle to report in 2007 (a renewal of the mandate came only in August 2007) and since Rio there was a lot of silence. But thanks for the discussion. CS members should taske this seriously and report back as much as possible. It is good to see, that the list becomes active again as it was during the WSIS time. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Do 07.02.2008 13:32 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Adam Peake Betreff: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is > that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the > CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy > to be proved wrong. > > It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so > keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the > CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, > I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, > wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have > any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would > amount to less transparency. Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really everything! A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same stance as China in that meeting. What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil society position. jeanette > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there > before and I missed it): > > "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are > available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how > this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it > is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that > were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is > good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the > IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much > more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the > MAG's veiled world two years ago. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 08:34:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:04:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425950@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20080207133528.616736784B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Thanks for all the responses. Just two points. I never spoke of any conspiracy. I am discussing how CS MAG members can report back better. Second, I don’t think China and Russia will even themselves ever be found claiming great love for CS participation and too much openness. So, I don’t think you all need to argue too much to convince anyone on that count. I was making a factual point. And China did ask for making MAG meeting open to observers. That’s all. Now whether they did it so that it can kill MAG/ IGF is something of a long shot theory, but I have no comments to offer to that. And if your Feb 07 proposal for more openness and transparency was made as a part of open consultations, a transcript if which was available to me to see, I apologize that I said I know of no efforts from CS MAG members (though you are not strictly that as a special advisor to the chair)towards greater opening up of MAG deliberations. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Adam Peake Subject: AW: [governance] communicating with our peers Dear list, Jeanette is right. There is no conspiracy or a dislinkage from MAG members and its constituencies. I also argued during the IGF consultations in Febeurary 2007 in Geneva in favour of more openess and transparency. My proposal was to allow "silent onlookers" as we had in some sessions of WGIG. Under such a regime only members would have a right to talk in the discussion, but non-members can always individually talk to members so that their position can be transported directly to the debate. This allows to work in a smaller group. Otherwise you blockade any progress. There will be no free and creative discussions within groups of more than 100 members. This is a practical and not a political question. Human wisdom tells this. One condition for such a regime would have been also that the silent onlookers should follow the Chatham House rules. In WGIG this worked. After the second meeting to number of "silent onlookers" went down but more trust was created. A majority of MAG members (mainly from governments) rejected my proposal in February. However as far as I remember, it was the CS reps in the MAG who supported it and agreed finally under the conditions that the issue should come back at an appropriate time. So again, no conspiracy. This is the CS position under the At Large label in ICANN since 1999 when CS/ALM people critisized the closed sessions of the GAC and under WSIS since PrepCom I. In Geneva in June 2002 - after the opening ceremony of WSIS I - CS (and PS) people were removed from the conference hall in the GICC and chaos emerged with people knocking loudly on the closed doors while the security was blocking access and governmental representatives were starting a discussion among themselves behind closed doors. It was a big step from Geneva 2002 to the Geneva 2008 (from turmoils to trust, from input to impact). This is an evaluation with some ups and downs, but the directions is clear. And its an innovation in global diplomacy not welcomed by many governments. To be frank neither China nor Russia had been on the forefront fighting for transparency and openeess (as Jeanette remembers correctly). The Russia delegate asked in the closed May 2007 consultations, why all these non-governmental people are sitting here in the room and where they are coming from. He was a newbie and talked about his excellent experiences in the ITU. I was a special target of his intervention because I asked the Russian delegate whether he wants to bring IG under a telecommunication oversight regime as excersiced by the ITU or whether he supports the end-to-end principle, bottom up policy development processes and multistakhoderism for IG. One cirtical point of the debate is obviously that MAG CS members should report back more regularily (within the Chatham House rules). But there was only litle to report in 2007 (a renewal of the mandate came only in August 2007) and since Rio there was a lot of silence. But thanks for the discussion. CS members should taske this seriously and report back as much as possible. It is good to see, that the list becomes active again as it was during the WSIS time. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Do 07.02.2008 13:32 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Adam Peake Betreff: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is > that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the > CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy > to be proved wrong. > > It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so > keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the > CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, > I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, > wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have > any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would > amount to less transparency. Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really everything! A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same stance as China in that meeting. What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil society position. jeanette > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there > before and I missed it): > > "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are > available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how > this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it > is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that > were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is > good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the > IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much > more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the > MAG's veiled world two years ago. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 08:47:03 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:47:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47AAFA76.3070408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Je, Just a friendly observation from the peanut gallery. On 2/7/08 1:32 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve > trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can > also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its In arguing that not much happens worth reporting and hence there's no issue of inadequate reporting, you're citing an event that we didn't know about that some of us find interesting. Sort of demonstrates the opposing case, no? I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally or as suggesting a conspiracy, per Wolfie. I thought he was just saying it'd have been good if the half dozen CS participants from or nominated by the IGC had reported from time to time on relevant tidbits and trends, respecting Chatham (e.g. with the above story being about countries A and B). As Jeremy noted, it wouldn't be hard for the group to define a procedure for period schematic reporting. Of course, this sort of presumes that the members are representatives of/accountable to the IGC, which has been disputed prior (and may indicate disagreement about the nature of the nomination). Personally I'm not particularly concerned to know all the details of a conference program committee's discussions, but I'd have thought it would be been fairly easy to satisfy the requests for something more that have been made and remade for some time on the list. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Feb 7 09:03:22 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:03:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDE24@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080206110348.F008767856@smtp1.electricembers.net> <00e301c868b0$a8d20c90$fa7625b0$@net> <39B9AF50-B94A-4670-A87A-5A6842D4965D@Malcolm.id.au> <013a01c868c9$70994ff0$51cbefd0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4AC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080207082110.GB13536@hserus.net> <20080207083040.GA13918@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47AB0FAA.2060400@rits.org.br> Wait a minute, McT, which part? I have never heard of ICANN overriding an IETF recommendation, to the contrary, and there is a non-empty intersection between the two in their mandates. I do not smoke, but please pass on my cigar to Milton. :) --c.a. McTim wrote: > Apologies for the lack of completeness in my previous mail, it was a > draft which was sent by fat-fingeredness. > > On Feb 7, 2008 11:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Jeremy Malcolm [07/02/08 17:25 +0900]: >>> What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise >>> soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a >>> counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is >>> also soft? I really don't see the distinction. >> Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, >> trust me. > > ACK. > > In addition, the IETF (or any 3rd party for that matter) has NEVER > tried to have ICANN or any other net body "overseen" by the IETF. So > nice try Milton, but no cigar. > > It's not just me and Suresh, Avri weighed in with her objections as > well. As far as the "usual suspects" crack goes, I think we (and > others on this list) are centrists in the Internet community, and I > submit it is not the "usual suspects" who are the fringe element in > this discussion. > > If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact > that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the > unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my > off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 09:26:59 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:26:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] communicating with our peers References: <20080207133528.616736784B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425952@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder:. And if your Feb 07 proposal for more openness and transparency was made as a part of open consultations, a transcript if which was available to me to see, I apologize that I said I know of no efforts from CS MAG members (though you are not strictly that as a special advisor to the chair)towards greater opening up of MAG deliberations. Wolfgang: I made the intervention during the first closed session after the open consultations, referring to the proposals made during the open consultations in February 2007. So no need for apology. It was not recorded but it is in my memory because this point is very important for me (and the majority of the CS folks inside and outside the MAG). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Feb 7 09:34:03 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:34:03 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425950@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080207045310.0F79EE0435@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47AAFA76.3070408@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425950@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <47AB16DB.6020004@rits.org.br> Let me take this msg from compa Wolf to add some more comments and perhaps a suggestion. I agree, first of all, there is no conspiracy (certain momentary "heavy hands" aside which have been brushed off), but specific objectives of each stakeholder rep are diverse and this reflects in their actions of course. The examples quoted by Jean and Wolf are clear. Also, we agree CS members have different interactions with their peers, depending on several factors. One example: we, Brazilian CS (currently Gindre and I) regularly report in the Brazilian list, but for some participants there are language barriers and so on (making difficult for them to follow what is going on just by reading an attached document in English in the list). The list is very small (probably due, among other factors, to the language barrier and, frankly, the dullness of the subject for many), and one of our efforts is to bring more ngo people to the list (not easy). I am sure any of our CS people in the MAG will have their own particular, objective problems in carrying out this interaction. So it is not a matter of laziness or of not wishing to be transparent. I guess it would be interesting, once we get together again, to go over these problems, share them and try and seek ways to circumvent them. Secondly, regarding the forms of work in the MAG: I wonder (I am stepping in very soft terrain here) if, as part of the restructuring we are discussing, we could think of forming working groups within the MAG (where even the observers could contribute in the elaboration of specific tasks). Currently 40+ people discuss everything all the time with about the same order of priorities. We could, for example, have one WG doing the specifics of the next meeting's logistics, another working on the agenda (!), yet another overseeing MAG procedures as they go along, etc. This does not mean they decide anything, just that this could be a form to make our homework more efficient. The WGs would regularly report on their work in the list, would have their own lists and so on. After all, CS meetings do this all the time and results in general are good. frt rgds --c.a. Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear list, > > Jeanette is right. There is no conspiracy or a dislinkage from MAG members and its constituencies. > > I also argued during the IGF consultations in Febeurary 2007 in Geneva in favour of more openess and transparency. My proposal was to allow "silent onlookers" as we had in some sessions of WGIG. Under such a regime only members would have a right to talk in the discussion, but non-members can always individually talk to members so that their position can be transported directly to the debate. This allows to work in a smaller group. Otherwise you blockade any progress. There will be no free and creative discussions within groups of more than 100 members. This is a practical and not a political question. Human wisdom tells this. One condition for such a regime would have been also that the silent onlookers should follow the Chatham House rules. In WGIG this worked. After the second meeting to number of "silent onlookers" went down but more trust was created. > > A majority of MAG members (mainly from governments) rejected my proposal in February. However as far as I remember, it was the CS reps in the MAG who supported it and agreed finally under the conditions that the issue should come back at an appropriate time. So again, no conspiracy. > > This is the CS position under the At Large label in ICANN since 1999 when CS/ALM people critisized the closed sessions of the GAC and under WSIS since PrepCom I. In Geneva in June 2002 - after the opening ceremony of WSIS I - CS (and PS) people were removed from the conference hall in the GICC and chaos emerged with people knocking loudly on the closed doors while the security was blocking access and governmental representatives were starting a discussion among themselves behind closed doors. It was a big step from Geneva 2002 to the Geneva 2008 (from turmoils to trust, from input to impact). This is an evaluation with some ups and downs, but the directions is clear. And its an innovation in global diplomacy not welcomed by many governments. > > To be frank neither China nor Russia had been on the forefront fighting for transparency and openeess (as Jeanette remembers correctly). The Russia delegate asked in the closed May 2007 consultations, why all these non-governmental people are sitting here in the room and where they are coming from. He was a newbie and talked about his excellent experiences in the ITU. I was a special target of his intervention because I asked the Russian delegate whether he wants to bring IG under a telecommunication oversight regime as excersiced by the ITU or whether he supports the end-to-end principle, bottom up policy development processes and multistakhoderism for IG. > > One cirtical point of the debate is obviously that MAG CS members should report back more regularily (within the Chatham House rules). But there was only litle to report in 2007 (a renewal of the mandate came only in August 2007) and since Rio there was a lot of silence. > > But thanks for the discussion. CS members should taske this seriously and report back as much as possible. It is good to see, that the list becomes active again as it was during the WSIS time. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Gesendet: Do 07.02.2008 13:32 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Adam Peake > Betreff: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > > > > > >> In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is >> that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the >> CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy >> to be proved wrong. >> >> It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so >> keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the >> CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact, >> I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China, >> wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have >> any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would >> amount to less transparency. > > Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really > everything! > A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My > comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this > proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment > can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by > accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of > a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up > without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same > stance as China in that meeting. > > What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve > trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can > also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its > good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of > simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of > openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil > society position. > jeanette >> Parminder >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers >> >> This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there >> before and I missed it): >> >> "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are >> available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how >> this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it >> is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. >> >> Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that >> were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is >> good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the >> IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much >> more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the >> MAG's veiled world two years ago. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 7 09:40:16 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:40:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AB1850.8020700@wzb.eu> William Drake wrote: > Hi Je, > > Just a friendly observation from the peanut gallery. > > On 2/7/08 1:32 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > >> What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve >> trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can >> also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its > > In arguing that not much happens worth reporting and hence there's no issue > of inadequate reporting, you're citing an event that we didn't know about > that some of us find interesting. Sort of demonstrates the opposing case, > no? That event happened on a day when the MAG meeting was open. Parminder was there. You too as far as I remember. And I wouldn't have referred to that event the way I did if hadn't been open. > > I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally Yes, I know. Its never personally. Adam and I both just happen to be a bit paranoid. or as > suggesting a conspiracy, per Wolfie. I thought he was just saying it'd have > been good if the half dozen CS participants from or nominated by the IGC had > reported from time to time on relevant tidbits and trends, respecting > Chatham (e.g. with the above story being about countries A and B). As > Jeremy noted, it wouldn't be hard for the group to define a procedure for > period schematic reporting. What Parminder said is that efforts of increasing transparency "has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the CS members in the MAG." Of course, this sort of presumes that the > members are representatives of/accountable to the IGC, which has been > disputed prior (and may indicate disagreement about the nature of the > nomination). > > Personally I'm not particularly concerned to know all the details of a > conference program committee's discussions, but I'd have thought it would be > been fairly easy to satisfy the requests for something more that have been > made and remade for some time on the list. As I said before, I don't think there was any substantial issue we didn't report. If regular intervals of reporting are regarded as helpful, I think we are both willing to do it. jeanette > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 7 12:40:43 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:40:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal. And I think your misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness that seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to it by internationalization. How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the IGF? If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too soft on ICANN. ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism. In terms of becoming a "decision-making body" again I think this is a massive overstatement. Parminder has demonstrated conclusively that IGF's mandate includes reviewing and assessing the accountability of Internet governance insitutions. But IGF has no binding authority or leverage (comparable to ICANN's control of the root zone, for example) with which to enforce its recommendations. So in what sense does it become decision-making. If IGF is nothing more than a completely non-threatening space where people talk, tell me what it does that isn't done better by the complex of academic and industry conferences that come along by the dozens each year? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; avri at psg.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: > Reforming ICANN > > Avri, > > I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a > recognition of what de facto is already happening. > > ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily > participated > in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions. > > At those sessions, people have made positive and negative > comments, and > offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN. > > So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project > ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping > ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>> > and an ICANN volunteer, but writing from my own perspective> > > Hi, > > I do not expect that the reason people might be against has > to do with > laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the > IGF as a > safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers, > including ICANN. The IGP proposal would not only subordinate > ICANN to > the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into > becoming a > decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical > change in > the nature of the forum. > > Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body, > but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to > be. Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable > step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it > is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for. > At least > it does not seem that way to me. > > a. > > > > On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Some perceptive comments, Parminder. > > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable > > > to it.... and why ????? > > > > The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN > > is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every > > morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more > comfortable to > > sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that > performing > > this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life > > for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort. > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 7 15:01:07 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:01:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: McTim, We're just talking about the loose, amorphous IGF, remember. Jumping to 'multilateral government oversight' of ICANN from what IGP has proposed is off target; it is not what we said, and not what we meant. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 02/07/08 5:13 AM >>> Apologies for the lack of completeness in my previous mail, it was a draft which was sent by fat-fingeredness. On Feb 7, 2008 11:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm [07/02/08 17:25 +0900]: > > What is your point? That because the IGF "doesn't exist" it can't exercise > > soft governance over ICANN? And you seek to differentiate the IETF as a > > counter-example on the basis that its governance of Internet standards is > > also soft? I really don't see the distinction. > > Soft governance - possibly. Oversight - no. There aint no soft oversight, > trust me. ACK. In addition, the IETF (or any 3rd party for that matter) has NEVER tried to have ICANN or any other net body "overseen" by the IETF. So nice try Milton, but no cigar. It's not just me and Suresh, Avri weighed in with her objections as well. As far as the "usual suspects" crack goes, I think we (and others on this list) are centrists in the Internet community, and I submit it is not the "usual suspects" who are the fringe element in this discussion. If anyone could point to a mail where we reached consensus on the fact that we as IGC want multilateral governmental oversight to replace the unilateral one currently in place, I'd appreciate it. Judging from my off list mail, there are plenty of people taking us seriously! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Feb 7 15:49:56 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:49:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 7 Feb 2008, at 18:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal. For you to say i misunderstand what you say is fine. i think that may even be a mantra between us. > And I think your > misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness > that for you to say my misunderstanding is fueled by defensiveness is offensive ( meaning the opposite of defensive, and not meaning that you have offended me. whenever someone calls another defensive, they are on the attack what can we say in response? - oh no, i am not defensive. - gee, that sounds defensive to me ) > > seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to > it by internationalization. As I think you know, i have personally advocated internationalization for a long time, though i admit i am adverse to any sort of inter- governmentalism. > > > How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's > accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the > IGF? > If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too soft > on > ICANN. > In your letter you argue that ICANN is not ready to be independent. quote IGP, like many other stakeholders, does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully independent yet. end quote furthermore you state that it needs to be accountable to someone, a point to which i agree. quote The problem is more fundamental and systemic. It can be summed up in two words: external accountability. end quote you go on to define what you mean by External accountability: quote External accountability refers to the ability of members the Internet-using public to effectively sanction the organization unquote I can even agree with this. i can even agree that some sort of external international oversight is required. but I argue that anyone who can sanction another puts the other into a subordinate position. By any definition I understand, oversight, involves a power relationship and thus subordinates one entity to the other. As I understand the IGF, one goal is to do all we can to balance the power relationships in IG. I accept Parminder's arguments that it is a 'goody goody' viewpoint to think that the power relationships have all been eliminated in the IGF. But i believe strongly that this is a goal - and that while we are under the umbrella of the IGF we must strive for parity and equality of participants and organizations. (You can call me a naive dreamer and optimist if you like) I believe that any arrangement that mandates that ICANN report and respond to the IGF, puts the IGF in a position that is contrary to its intended nature. So while I agree that ICANN may need to report to someone I do not see how the IGF could accept such a responsibility and remain the IGF as defined by the TA and its initial meetings. Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no confidence vote model. I have not bothered to write this to NTIA, because I don't expect them to care one whit what i may have to say. > ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely > active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism. I can't speak for ICANN, or anyone else for that matter, but they do seem very open to the opinions and criticism of IGF participants and others. I think that this is the soft power that people speak of - the soft power of people using reason and being able to help an organization see itself from external viewpoints. i would hope that any participant in the IGF, not just ICANN, would be able to improve [it, him, her]self based on the multiple perspectives available in the the IGF. > > > In terms of becoming a "decision-making body" again I think this is a > massive overstatement. Parminder has demonstrated conclusively that > IGF's mandate includes reviewing and assessing the accountability of > Internet governance insitutions. I believe Parminder has confounded two separate mandates; the IGF mandate and the enhanced cooperation mandate. I therefore do not find his argument convincing. Though I can easily see how it might be compelling to some. I think the enhanced cooperation formula is much more complicated then that. > But IGF has no binding authority or > leverage (comparable to ICANN's control of the root zone, for example) > with which to enforce its recommendations. So in what sense does it > become decision-making. I believe that putting it in the position to sanction would involve decision making. > > > If IGF is nothing more than a completely non-threatening space where > people talk, tell me what it does that isn't done better by the > complex > of academic and industry conferences that come along by the dozens > each > year? Because academic conferences only have an academic scope and industry conferences only have a private sector scope, whereas the IGF has a global multistakeholder scope. and because the IGF is the first to have a scope that brings together civil society, international organizations, the private sector, IGOs, the academy, techies and governments into a single non-threatening space. I see that as something precious that should not be overloaded with other functions. 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 Thu Feb 7 16:50:26 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:50:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47AB7D22.6000909@rits.org.br> Avri, besides the interesting response, I like the xml-like format! :) frt rgds --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > > On 7 Feb 2008, at 18:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal. > > For you to say i misunderstand what you say is fine. i think that may > even be a mantra between us. > >> And I think your >> misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness that > > for you to say my misunderstanding is fueled by defensiveness is offensive > ( > meaning the opposite of defensive, > and not meaning that you have offended me. > whenever someone calls another defensive, > they are on the attack > what can we say in response? > - oh no, i am not defensive. > - gee, that sounds defensive to me > ) > >> >> seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to >> it by internationalization. > > > As I think you know, i have personally advocated internationalization > for a long time, though i admit i am adverse to any sort of > inter-governmentalism. > >> >> >> How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's >> accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the IGF? >> If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too soft on >> ICANN. >> > > In your letter you argue that ICANN is not ready to be independent. > > quote > IGP, like many other stakeholders, > does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully > independent yet. > end quote > > furthermore you state that it needs to be accountable to someone, a > point to which i agree. > > quote > The problem is more fundamental and systemic. > It can be summed > up in two words: external accountability. > end quote > > you go on to define what you mean by External accountability: > > quote > External accountability refers to the ability of members > the Internet-using public to effectively sanction the > organization > unquote > > I can even agree with this. i can even agree that some sort of external > international oversight is required. but I argue that anyone who can > sanction another puts the other into a subordinate position. By any > definition I understand, oversight, involves a power relationship and > thus subordinates one entity to the other. > > As I understand the IGF, one goal is to do all we can to balance the > power relationships in IG. I accept Parminder's arguments that it is a > 'goody goody' viewpoint to think that the power relationships have all > been eliminated in the IGF. But i believe strongly that this is a goal > - and that while we are under the umbrella of the IGF we must strive for > parity and equality of participants and organizations. (You can call me > a naive dreamer and optimist if you like) > > I believe that any arrangement that mandates that ICANN report and > respond to the IGF, puts the IGF in a position that is contrary to its > intended nature. So while I agree that ICANN may need to report to > someone I do not see how the IGF could accept such a responsibility and > remain the IGF as defined by the TA and its initial meetings. > > Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then > disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that > includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no > confidence vote model. I have not bothered to write this to NTIA, > because I don't expect them to care one whit what i may have to say. > > >> ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely >> active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism. > > I can't speak for ICANN, or anyone else for that matter, but they do > seem very open to the opinions and criticism of IGF participants and > others. I think that this is the soft power that people speak of - the > soft power of people using reason and being able to help an organization > see itself from external viewpoints. i would hope that any participant > in the IGF, not just ICANN, would be able to improve [it, him, her]self > based on the multiple perspectives available in the the IGF. > >> >> >> In terms of becoming a "decision-making body" again I think this is a >> massive overstatement. Parminder has demonstrated conclusively that >> IGF's mandate includes reviewing and assessing the accountability of >> Internet governance insitutions. > > I believe Parminder has confounded two separate mandates; the IGF > mandate and the enhanced cooperation mandate. I therefore do not find > his argument convincing. Though I can easily see how it might be > compelling to some. I think the enhanced cooperation formula is much > more complicated then that. > >> But IGF has no binding authority or >> leverage (comparable to ICANN's control of the root zone, for example) >> with which to enforce its recommendations. So in what sense does it >> become decision-making. > > I believe that putting it in the position to sanction would involve > decision making. > >> >> >> If IGF is nothing more than a completely non-threatening space where >> people talk, tell me what it does that isn't done better by the complex >> of academic and industry conferences that come along by the dozens each >> year? > > Because academic conferences only have an academic scope and industry > conferences only have a private sector scope, whereas the IGF has a > global multistakeholder scope. and because the IGF is the first to have > a scope that brings together civil society, international organizations, > the private sector, IGOs, the academy, techies and governments into a > single non-threatening space. I see that as something precious that > should not be overloaded with other functions. > > > 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 7 16:59:50 2008 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:59:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The_3rd_African_Conference_on_Free_a?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nd_Open_Source_Software_and__the_Digital_Commons_-_Idlelo_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?3-_Troisi=E8me_Conf=E9rence_Africaine_sur_les_Logiciels_Li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?bres?= Message-ID: <61780.45293.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dakar, Senegal will be our host country this year and the conference will be taking place from the 16th to the 20th of March 2008 at the Université Cheick Anta Diop (UCAD) of Dakar,Campus Numérique de la Francophonie, Dakar, Senegal. http://www.aiti-kace.com.gh/idlelo/ Registrations are open here http://www.aiti-kace.com.gh/idlelo/?q=node/11 =============================================== Cette année, la conférence se tiendra à Dakar au Sénégal du 16 au 20 Mars 2008 à l’ Université Cheick Anta Diop (UCAD) de Dakar, Campus Numérique de la Francophonie, Dakar, Sénégal. http://www.aiti-kace.com.gh/idlelofr/ Pour vous y inscrire http://www.aiti-kace.com.gh/idlelofr/?q=node/3 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 7 22:20:37 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:20:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080208032037.GC8791@hserus.net> Lee McKnight [07/02/08 15:01 -0500]: >McTim, > >We're just talking about the loose, amorphous IGF, remember. > >Jumping to 'multilateral government oversight' of ICANN from what IGP >has proposed is off target; it is not what we said, and not what we >meant. > Avri has already demolished IGP's "arguments" in this case, so I will simply support what she says, here. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Feb 8 02:16:02 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:16:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri: Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no confidence vote model. Wolfgang: I fully agree with Avri. Following the debate it seems to me that one reason for the misunderstandings is that we have still a very weak conceptual theoretical framework for the "bottom up policy development principle".We do not yet really understand what "bottom up" means contrasted with the century old "top down" policy principle. Bottom up was one of the main arguments of CS in WSIS. This was part of the discussion within CS (reflected in the endless debates about the role of the Plenary, Content&Themes and the CS Bureau) but it was also part of the bigger picture with regard to the relationship between the three stakeholders, in particular between CS and government. The principle of multistakeholderism emerged from this discussion. At least it was recognized as an undefined concept in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles in 2003 and constituted the basis for the formation of WGIG as a compromise between the controversial concepts of "governmental leadership" vs. "private sector leadership" in Internet Governance by the heads of states and governments. It includes certainly the bottom up policy development principle as one key element, even if this was not stated so expressis verbis. My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure out both within their own groups and among themselves how to manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with violence) became reconstructuted from a hierarchical model into a network model where nobody is on the top but everybody is linked to everyboday (and has a responsibility, accountability) to everybody but not in a way to be "overseen" or "controlled" but in a self-disciplined self-governed take and give which is in the own interest of each party and not the result of a power relationship. Important: The WGIG report added that the stakeholders are acting together in "their specific roles and responsibilities". They are working on the same issue but have different interests, doing different things and have different responsibilities. But nobody can settle the issues alone without taking the other stakeholders on board. It is not only that everybody should work together with everybody, the dilemma (or better the good thing) is, that everybody neeeds everybody and must work together, otherwise the whole process fails. During the Meissen Symposium last year we discussed at length the concept of "enhanced cooperation" and discovered two totally different models: The top down enhanced cooperation model (initiated by the EU and supported by a number of governments) is an inter-govenmental negotiation mechanism which creates a politcal and/or legal framework in which then others actors - not included in the final decison making - has to act. Madame Reding used in Athens the picture of the "concentric cirlces" with the governments in the center and the IGF at the periphery (eyebrorws among a lot of participants and she did not repeat this in Rio). The other model ist the bottom up enhanced cooperation model. It has a number of components, starting with "enhanced communication" among intersted stakeholders, moving deeper (if needed) to enhanced coordination and leading (again if needed) to informal or formal enhanced cooperation bilatrally or multilatrally, according to the special needs of the substance of a concrete issue at stake. I undestand (and agree) that one counterargument is: You are a dreamer. You do not understand the world where power politics dominates, where somebody has to give an order and others have to say "Yes Sir". However, both in the process of the making of ICANN and the WSIS process a lot of these new ideas were flying around and they got some first mechanisms for a global experiment both within ICANN (regardless of the many drawbacks) and now, on a higher level with the IGF. With other words, putting the IGF into the role of an oversight body would put the original innovative and radical democratic concept from the feets to the head. And it would destroy the IGF if the IGF would take over such a role. In contrary, the IGF is an ideal (neutral but very political) ) platform where interested partners can kick start processes of enhanced communication, enhanced coordination and enhanced cooperation (EC³) on various issues on a voluntary basis, driven by their own interest and pushed forward by the pressure of the involved and affectd stakeholder groups. Here we can move with bottom up from theory to practice. But, ujnfortunately theory is still weak, so we need more practical generated knowledge how this will work. Obviously it will work only if it is done not in a "general way" but on an "issue by issue" approach. And at the end this will lead to different governance models, dependung from the nature of the issue, but following the triangular model. As a result we will have numerous different governance models and not a unique (and centralized) one. There is not one "triangle", there are numerous diffent looking triangels ( I called this the "tower of triangels") which at the end of the day constitute a new governance model. Historically we are moving - as Mr. Hegel and Mr. Marx have said 200 years ago - from "simple structures to complex structures". ICANN - at least in my eyes - is still both an experiment and a pioneer in testing out such a triangular governance model. And regardless of all the weaknesses, it has made tremendous progress over the years (if I remember ICANN meetings in 1999, 2001 or 2003). ICANN does not need a new "master" (IGF, ITU, WICANN etc.) but further improved procedures and processes (following the inherent bottom up policy development proceeses defined in varios PDPs of SOs and ACs), it needs strong and self-confident stakeholders (including a stronger and enabled At Large community), it needs more independence and an external mechanism where the microcosmos ICANN, a triangular model in itself, can excercise trilaterlism on a higher level in a macrocosmos like the IGF. And - surprise, surprise - it works so far. If you look what the IGF in Rio produced with the seven workshops on CIR and the interesting"enhanced communication" amolng ICANN, ITU and UNESCO that you see that the "powershift", provoked by the "information revolution", which leads to this new kind of "power struggle" we are witnessing the last 20 years is leading to new not yet defined models. Be patient, history needs some time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 8 03:00:06 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:30:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47AB1850.8020700@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi Jeanette >> I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally >Yes, I know. Its never personally. Adam and I both just happen to be a >bit paranoid. See, I have the right to ask questions about CS reps anywhere, and I am doing it. And I am not going to stop doing it. CS MAG members, as the name suggests, were selected in some way or the other as representing CS constituencies, and I am going by that. All the work we did at WSIS was in two directions - one, to get some progressive substantive stuff into global IG policy and mechanisms, and secondly to ensure more multistakeholder-ism. We wanted MS-ism not just because we fancy the term - but because by having MS representation on public policy bodies we can influence their agenda and activity. Now when we have a MS public policy related global body, it is only logical to explore and analyze how is CS participation in it working. Anybody who was serious about the original MS agenda would want to know this. For this we must discuss if the method and quantity of CS representation was right and adequate, but must also see if CS could make any significant impact, which was the whole point. Transparency of these public bodies itself is an important aspect to influence. So, we are discussing it, and examining what role CS representation did or could play in this matter. Any issues with it! >What Parminder said is that efforts of increasing transparency "has >happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the >CS members in the MAG." But I followed a clear logical path to this observation, which you have a right to prove wrong rather than just keeping on taking umbrage on the observation. You have said many times now that you guys reported all that was important enough to be reported. You say it again in this email itself. > As I said before, I don't think there was any substantial issue we >didn't report. I have clearly stated that I take this to mean that there was never any special effort by CS members inside MAG to make its proceedings more open (Wolfgang's email came in later). Because, this clearly is a very substantial issues, and I have seen no reports from any CS MAG member on this. Nothing was reported even when this issue has been discussed on this list quite a few times. Can you please explain to me what is wrong in my reasoning here? And even after this thing has gone through so many loops you haven't said - well, this is what all MAG CS members did towards opening up MAG consultations, and this all happened or did not happen as a consequence. Instead you and Adam are just coming back telling me that I doing something nasty. Not such a problem for me, but it just might not be encouraging to others who may have wanted to participate in this discussion. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:10 PM To: William Drake Cc: Governance; Singh, Parminder; Peake, Adam Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers William Drake wrote: > Hi Je, > > Just a friendly observation from the peanut gallery. > > On 2/7/08 1:32 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > >> What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve >> trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can >> also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its > > In arguing that not much happens worth reporting and hence there's no issue > of inadequate reporting, you're citing an event that we didn't know about > that some of us find interesting. Sort of demonstrates the opposing case, > no? That event happened on a day when the MAG meeting was open. Parminder was there. You too as far as I remember. And I wouldn't have referred to that event the way I did if hadn't been open. > > I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally Yes, I know. Its never personally. Adam and I both just happen to be a bit paranoid. or as > suggesting a conspiracy, per Wolfie. I thought he was just saying it'd have > been good if the half dozen CS participants from or nominated by the IGC had > reported from time to time on relevant tidbits and trends, respecting > Chatham (e.g. with the above story being about countries A and B). As > Jeremy noted, it wouldn't be hard for the group to define a procedure for > period schematic reporting. What Parminder said is that efforts of increasing transparency "has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the CS members in the MAG." Of course, this sort of presumes that the > members are representatives of/accountable to the IGC, which has been > disputed prior (and may indicate disagreement about the nature of the > nomination). > > Personally I'm not particularly concerned to know all the details of a > conference program committee's discussions, but I'd have thought it would be > been fairly easy to satisfy the requests for something more that have been > made and remade for some time on the list. As I said before, I don't think there was any substantial issue we didn't report. If regular intervals of reporting are regarded as helpful, I think we are both willing to do it. jeanette > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Feb 8 03:24:25 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:24:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Please distribute it as wideley as possible Wolfgang Call for Application 2nd Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) Meissen, July 25 - August, 31, 2007 The Internet, with more than 1.2 billion users worldwide, is the most important infrastructure of the information age. The Internet influences policies, economics and cultures on the global as well as on the local level. Internet related issues like security and stability, freedom of expression, privacy, eCommerce, new market opportunities, protection of intellectual property, fight against cybercrime, development, digital divide and others getting higher and higher priorities on the national and international political agenda. To reach the UN Millenium Development Goals (MDG) until 2015 the Internet is a crucial tool. For some experts Internet Governance will become as important as it is climate change today. Do you want to understand, how and by whom the Internet is governed and what the issues are which have made Internet Governance as one of the new global conflicts of the diplomacy of the 21st century? Do you want to know what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet Governance are and what is behind ICANN, RIRs, ccTLDs, gTLDs, iDNs, IPv6, IGF, WGIG and WSIS ? Do want to get more detailed information on how technical Internet Standards, Protocols and Codes, how the Domain Name System and the IP Address Space or the Domain Name market is evolving? Than you should apply for the "2008 Summer School on Internet Governance" (SSIG). The 2008 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 50 hours academic programme both for graduate students and young academics as well as for junior professionals from private sector, government and civil society. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers also opportunities for interactive communication with faculty members and among the fellows themselves by the daily evening programme of students presentations. Members of the 2008 Faculty include, inter alia Prof. Olga Cavalli, University of Buenos Aires Bertrand de la Chapelle, Envoy of the Information Society, French Foreign Ministry Avria Doria, Lulea Technology University, Chair of ICANNs GNSO Council Dr. William Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies, Geneva Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias Ltd., Dublin Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris Markus Kummer, Executive Secretary of the Internet Governance Forum, (TBC) Prof. Milton Mueller, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, N.Y. Michael Niebel, European Commission, Member of ICANNs GAC, Brussels Prof. Jonathan Zittrain, Oxford Internet Institute (TBC) The Faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus The 2008 Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) takes place in the St. Afra Monastery of the "Evangelische Akademie Meissen" in Germany, a historic place, where the father of the German enlightenment, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, went to school. Meissen is a 1000 years old small city, famous for its "Meissen China", its very dry white wine and its old fortress, gothic churches and historic wine cellars from July 25 - July 31, 2008. It is a 30 minutes train ride from Dresden Airport, which connected by six daily shuttles to Munich and Frankfurt. The Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) is organized by the University of Aarhus and the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., a recognized "At Large Structure" (ALS) under ICANN Bylaws. It is sponsored by five TLD Registries, among them as Golden Sponsor DENIC (.de), as Silver Sponsor UNINETT (.no) and SIDN (.nl) and as Bronze Sponsor EURID (.eu) and DotAsia (.asia). Additionally UNESCO, Diplo Foundation, GIGANET, ENOM, Afilias, Dotberlin and others have partnered with the Summer School. The fee of 1.000.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT) includes, next to the full lecture programme * six nights accommodation in single guest rooms of the academy, * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee and snacks & wine at the daily night sessions, * one evening reception in the Meissen Procellanmanufactory, * a gala dinner in the historic wine-restaurant "Vinzenz Richter", * sightseeing events, * free WiFi access and * all teaching material. There is a special fee for students of 500.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT). There is also an opportunity to apply for support from the fellowship programme which is still under development. Students will get a certificate at the end of the Summer School. Detailed information, including the Draft Programme and the electronic "Application Form" as well as comments from 2007 Summer School Fellows can be found under www.euro-ssig.eu If you are interested in the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG), please send Applications until May 31, 2008 by using the electronic form on the website or contacting directly Sandra Hoferichter (info at hoferichter.eu), the Secretary of the Summer School or Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter (wolfgang at imv.au.dk), chair of the 2008 Faculty. Members of the 2008 Programme Committee Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus (Chair); Dr. William J. Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies Geneva; Prof. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University; Avria Doria, Lulea Technology University; Bart Vastenburg, SIDN; Giovanni Seppia, EURID; Sabine Dolderer, DENIC; Philipp Grabensee, Afilias; Axel Plathe, UNESCO ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Call for Application2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 124928 bytes Desc: Call for Application2.doc URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 8 03:41:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:11:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080208084211.25A9CE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi McTim First some clarifications. >> The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per >> what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always >> wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating >> free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) >Who is "us"? AFAIK, the IGC has NOT reached consensus that an "ICANN >floating free from any political accountability" is not acceptable. I don't mean the IGC. I am sorry if the use of 'us' caused some confusion. I know there is no such consensus reached in IGC. Its only that in our (again, see, I say, 'our') advocacy work, we (those, in advocacy work) often use the collective 'pronoun'. This in our mind relates what we are expressing to, what in our opinion, is the view of the constituencies to which we may, or at least purport to, connect. 'It is not acceptable to 'me'' or 'what 'I' want is' looks a bit pompous in this context, and that is also not the real point in collective advocacy efforts. And use of the collective pronoun also has the effect of a vague mental check on what we express. Anyway, I am sorry for the confusion. This 'us' here is my organization, and the group(s) that I identify with in my advocacy work. I agree, I as a co-coordinator should be a bit more careful in the use of the term in IG related matters. >> Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary >> changes. The new CEO >AFAIK, Paul Twomey is still CEO of ICANN. A slip. I meant the new chairman. >> influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it >> prove that its functions have great - present or future - political >> implications. >It SHOULD only do narrow technical coordination This statement read with your view that ' an "ICANN floating free from any political accountability" is ... the ideal situation in my mind' is the crux of the problem. It is a simple political concept that only a political body with due legitimacy can be sovereign, that is have no oversight over it... or to use the expression ' floating free from any political accountability'. To make it more comprehensible, to agree that ICANN only does tech function, and also to say it should be free floating without any policy oversight is similar to saying that the network and IT systems manager in my office should have no oversight and be free to do what he wants. Now, obviously that would not be proper. Any technical function is done only within a set of organizational (in ICANN's case, global socio-political) objectives, laying out which is not a technical function and therefore needs to be done at some other level. I would say it is quite simple. >Here is where I am lost, on one hand there are lots of folk who >complain about the bloated budget and 20 US cents per domain, and on >the other hand there are folk who complain that ICANN doesn't do >enough. I suggest that if you want ICANN to reach out to every single >person and poll them on how they want the Internet governed (even >those who don't know what the Internet is) the budget would grow by an >order of magnitude or more! You are right. No global governance system can attempt to reach every single person, in any meaningful manner. And therefore the nature of structures that mediate representation and legitimization become important. We are here discussing the nature of these structures. I am saying the present ICANN outreach structures connect to a very narrow constituency. We need other structures that connect better, without upsetting budget calculations too much. Connecting through IGF is one such idea. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity Hello Parminder, On Feb 6, 2008 5:56 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Suresh > > > > I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that > should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the > situation. The difference of view is about where this battle should be > waged. > > > > > >You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. > > > > The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per > what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always > wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating > free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) Who is "us"? AFAIK, the IGC has NOT reached consensus that an "ICANN floating free from any political accountability" is not acceptable. It would be the ideal situation in my mind, and I think in several other folks minds IIRC. Avri's is directly on point in her latest mail: "The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a decision making body. This would seem to me to be a radical change in the nature of the forum." I agree also that the IGF is not ready for such a change. the > soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. > > > > As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues. > > > > You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will > come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of > power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose, > what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. You are correct about that, "we" caused them (we being all the folks who participated in WSIS negotiations and who kept putting names and numbers on the table.) Though ICANN has > gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if > indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN > one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself. > > > > Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary > changes. The new CEO AFAIK, Paul Twomey is still CEO of ICANN. rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an > industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance > systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of > almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me > it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy > systems. > > > > ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination > function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and > influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it > prove that its functions have great - present or future - political > implications. It SHOULD only do narrow technical coordination, however, the folk who want it to do more have forced it to do more So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach > systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions > and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of > technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair). > > > > Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and > they should be equally enabled to participate - ICANN system does not reach > out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet > users which too it not what it is able to reach out to. Here is where I am lost, on one hand there are lots of folk who complain about the bloated budget and 20 US cents per domain, and on the other hand there are folk who complain that ICANN doesn't do enough. I suggest that if you want ICANN to reach out to every single person and poll them on how they want the Internet governed (even those who don't know what the Internet is) the budget would grow by an order of magnitude or more! And it is very > comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not > challenge its structural basis, tell that to the NRO! and have issues with it that are relatively > peripheral and contestations stays in these areas. > > > > Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN > build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social > constituencies that are implicated in IG today - which is basically all > people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or > indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet - > which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops? > What are the structures of participation of these people? > > > > And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an > continued industry-led governance system - I have deep ideological problems > with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case > - or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose > viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of > stakeholders implicated. > > > > A group of technical community members in their recent proposal > (http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a > useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and > diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")." > One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN > out-reach / participation structures connect to. I don't see ICANN score > well at all on this. > > > > I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may > perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in > response to Jeanette's email > > > > >when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter > governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be > productive. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy > Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > > > Parminder, > > > > I'm simply being realistic here. Do we expend all the energy of this group > tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast? And gets > moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of > stakeholder communities that wield influence there)? > > > > I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle. A whole > lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers, > people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help? > It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together > into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the > Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated > to govern the country. > > > > In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be > able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and > releasing position papers. You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby > within ICANN. Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions > on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within > DoC - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from > DoC and reassign it to IGF. > > > > ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven > process. There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have > enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate > actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views. It > doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there. > > > > In other words, talking wont help. Position papers, PhD theses etc wont > help either. And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF. > Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC is what is going to > help. > > > > suresh > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM > To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L > Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > Suresh > > > > > There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with > politically charged proposals > > > > But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political > views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. > > > > > DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream > proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that > 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our > political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may > or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/ > strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any > political views on this matter at all let that be stated too. > > > > Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do > you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close > to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly > trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of > IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly > so) emission control norms for themselves........ > > > > So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe > dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of > freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams? > > > > So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want.. > And if we just don't bother say that as well. > > > > When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know > whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought > IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil > society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily' > vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think > gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. > > > > So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough > to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we > really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy > Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of > civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some > cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc. Yes there'd be a > substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but .. > > > > 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with > politically charged proposals > > 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream > proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc > > > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > Oversight: A Historic Opportunity > > > > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why > ????? > > This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true, > would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any > conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this > discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area. > > > > 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 > > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Feb 8 05:30:49 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 05:30:49 EST Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: Dear All -- I'd like to say that I find Wolfgang's comments to be full of common sense. Previous discussions here on this theme seemed to me to be largely detached from reality (and dangerous from a freedom of expression standpoint). ICANN's structure is obviously flawed from a purely theoretical view of political philosophy. Unease with the connnection to a US government that has complicated problems in the world is quite understandable. Thankfully, that government has not complicated problems related to Internet governance. And dangers that it might do so are probably receding as the current US administration recedes. Every other proposal to date for the oversight of Internet governance seems to have insuperable practical drawbacks. The analogy seems to be Winnie Churchill's view of parliamentary democracy -- the worst system, except for all the others. One of the attractions of the Internet Governance Forum is its more or less amiable anarchy. Imagining its transformation into some sort of Internet oversight body strikes me not only as nightmarish but -- worse still -- as unmanageable. Universal bottom-up democracy seems chimeric. Bottom-up democracy works in relatively small territorial entities. It is hard to imagine a kind of world government based on that model. In any case, the "international community" (whatever that is) seems to be having a very hard time managing current outbreaks of traditional-style conflicts. Dealing with competing interests in a totally new environemt like the Internet is obviously beyond its current capacities. The existence of a place like the IGF to discuss how new oversight and conflict resolution mechanisms might possibly come about in the border-defying environment of the Internet is a positive situation. Meanwhile, I think that in a pragmatic spirit, we should stick with what has actually worked, rather than seek some ideal model that would inevitably create at least as many new conflicts amongst various interest groups as it is likely to resolve. Rony Koven World Press Freedom Committee PS My comments are personal. The organizational reference is for purposes of identification. ************** Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548) -------------- 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 Fri Feb 8 06:06:34 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:06:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity In-Reply-To: <20080208084211.25A9CE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080208084211.25A9CE053F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Feb 8, 2008 11:41 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > Hi McTim > > First some clarifications. > > > > > > I don't mean the IGC. I am sorry if the use of 'us' caused some confusion. good, I understand now what "us" means. > >It SHOULD only do narrow technical coordination > > > This statement read with your view that ' an "ICANN floating free from any > political accountability" is ... the ideal situation in my mind' is the crux > of the problem. > > It is a simple political concept that only a political body with due > legitimacy can be sovereign, that is have no oversight over it... or to use > the expression ' floating free from any political accountability'. And ICANN is not legitimate in your eyes, but legitimate in mine. > > To make it more comprehensible, to agree that ICANN only does tech function, > and also to say it should be free floating without any policy oversight is > similar to saying that the network and IT systems manager in my office > should have no oversight and be free to do what he wants. I don't think this is a useful analogy, in that your IT person is clearly within your organisation, whereas ICANN is not within IGF or the UN. Now, obviously > that would not be proper. Any technical function is done only within a set > of organizational (in ICANN's case, global socio-political) objectives, Again, we differ, ICANN's mission (objectives) is global, but not socio-political, except in the eyes of those who wish it so): "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems." > laying out which is not a technical function and therefore needs to be done > at some other level. > Agreed, I would say at the bottom of the bottom up process. > I would say it is quite simple. > > > >Here is where I am lost, on one hand there are lots of folk who > >complain about the bloated budget and 20 US cents per domain, and on > >the other hand there are folk who complain that ICANN doesn't do > >enough. I suggest that if you want ICANN to reach out to every single > >person and poll them on how they want the Internet governed (even > >those who don't know what the Internet is) the budget would grow by an > >order of magnitude or more! > > > You are right. No global governance system can attempt to reach every single > person, in any meaningful manner. And therefore the nature of structures > that mediate representation and legitimization become important. We are here > discussing the nature of these structures. I am saying the present ICANN > outreach structures connect to a very narrow constituency. We need other > structures that connect better, without upsetting budget calculations too > much. Connecting through IGF is one such idea. Agreed, this connecting is called enhanced cooperation, or EC3 as Wolfman calls it. I have given many examples in previous posts. Anything more is slippery slopery, which IMHO should be avoided at all costs. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 09:07:08 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:07:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Many thanks Wolfgang for the info. But one question: is there no sponsorship for candidates from LDCs. The content of the program makes the class a must for candidates from the South to participate. How do we get about this inclusiveness without sponsorship? Aaron On 2/8/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Please distribute it as wideley as possible > > Wolfgang > > > > > > Call for Application > > > > > > 2nd Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) > > > > Meissen, July 25 - August, 31, 2007 > > > > > > < > http://www.dotasia.org/> > > > > > > > > The Internet, with more than 1.2 billion users worldwide, is the most > important infrastructure of the information age. The Internet influences > policies, economics and cultures on the global as well as on the local > level. Internet related issues like security and stability, freedom of > expression, privacy, eCommerce, new market opportunities, protection of > intellectual property, fight against cybercrime, development, digital divide > and others getting higher and higher priorities on the national and > international political agenda. To reach the UN Millenium Development Goals > (MDG) until 2015 the Internet is a crucial tool. For some experts Internet > Governance will become as important as it is climate change today. > > > > Do you want to understand, how and by whom the Internet is governed and > what the issues are which have made Internet Governance as one of the new > global conflicts of the diplomacy of the 21st century? Do you want to know > what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet > Governance are and what is behind ICANN, RIRs, ccTLDs, gTLDs, iDNs, IPv6, > IGF, WGIG and WSIS ? Do want to get more detailed information on how > technical Internet Standards, Protocols and Codes, how the Domain Name > System and the IP Address Space or the Domain Name market is evolving? Than > you should apply for the "2008 Summer School on Internet Governance" (SSIG). > > > > The 2008 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 50 > hours academic programme both for graduate students and young academics as > well as for junior professionals from private sector, government and civil > society. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures > with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in > policy. It offers also opportunities for interactive communication with > faculty members and among the fellows themselves by the daily evening > programme of students presentations. > > > > Members of the 2008 Faculty include, inter alia > > Prof. Olga Cavalli, University of Buenos Aires > > Bertrand de la Chapelle, Envoy of the Information Society, French Foreign > Ministry > > Avria Doria, Lulea Technology University, Chair of ICANNs GNSO Council > > Dr. William Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development > Studies, Geneva > > Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias Ltd., Dublin > > Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris > > Markus Kummer, Executive Secretary of the Internet Governance Forum, (TBC) > > Prof. Milton Mueller, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, > N.Y. > > Michael Niebel, European Commission, Member of ICANNs GAC, Brussels > > Prof. Jonathan Zittrain, Oxford Internet Institute (TBC) > > The Faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of > Aarhus > > > > The 2008 Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) takes place in the > St. Afra Monastery of the "Evangelische Akademie Meissen" in Germany, a > historic place, where the father of the German enlightenment, Gotthold > Ephraim Lessing, went to school. Meissen is a 1000 years old small city, > famous for its "Meissen China", its very dry white wine and its old > fortress, gothic churches and historic wine cellars from July 25 - July 31, > 2008. It is a 30 minutes train ride from Dresden Airport, which connected by > six daily shuttles to Munich and Frankfurt. > > > > The Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) is organized by the > University of Aarhus and the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., a recognized "At > Large Structure" (ALS) under ICANN Bylaws. It is sponsored by five TLD > Registries, among them as Golden Sponsor DENIC (.de), as Silver Sponsor > UNINETT (.no) and SIDN (.nl) and as Bronze Sponsor EURID (.eu) and DotAsia > (.asia). Additionally UNESCO, Diplo Foundation, GIGANET, ENOM, Afilias, > Dotberlin and others have partnered with the Summer School. > > > > The fee of 1.000.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT) includes, next to the full lecture > programme > > * six nights accommodation in single guest rooms of the academy, > * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee and snacks & wine at the daily > night sessions, > * one evening reception in the Meissen Procellanmanufactory, > * a gala dinner in the historic wine-restaurant "Vinzenz Richter", > * sightseeing events, > * free WiFi access and > * all teaching material. > > > > There is a special fee for students of 500.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT). There is > also an opportunity to apply for support from the fellowship programme which > is still under development. Students will get a certificate at the end of > the Summer School. > > > > Detailed information, including the Draft Programme and the electronic > "Application Form" as well as comments from 2007 Summer School Fellows can > be found under www.euro-ssig.eu > > > > If you are interested in the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG), > please send Applications until May 31, 2008 by using the electronic form on > the website or contacting directly Sandra Hoferichter (info at hoferichter.eu), > the Secretary of the Summer School or Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter ( > wolfgang at imv.au.dk), chair of the 2008 Faculty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Members of the 2008 Programme Committee > > > > Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus (Chair); Dr. William J. > Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies Geneva; > Prof. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University; Avria Doria, Lulea Technology > University; Bart Vastenburg, SIDN; Giovanni Seppia, EURID; Sabine Dolderer, > DENIC; Philipp Grabensee, Afilias; Axel Plathe, UNESCO > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 8 10:46:36 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:46:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDFDE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > As I think you know, i have personally advocated internationalization > for a long time, though i admit i am adverse to any sort of inter- > governmentalism. Then we agree partly, at a basic principle level. IGP folks just tend to think that ultimately you have to get governments to agree to be limited -- you cannot adopt an "ignore it and it will go away" approach to state power in the modern world. > > How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's > > accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the > > IGF? If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too > > soft on ICANN. > > > > In your letter you argue that ICANN is not ready to be independent. Avri, you engage in some very fragmented and selective quotation of our position. See response below > > quote > IGP, like many other stakeholders, > does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully > independent yet. > end quote > > furthermore you state that it needs to be accountable to someone, a > point to which i agree. > > quote > The problem is more fundamental and systemic. > It can be summed > up in two words: external accountability. > end quote > > you go on to define what you mean by External accountability: > > quote > External accountability refers to the ability of members > the Internet-using public to effectively sanction the > organization > unquote > > I can even agree with this. i can even agree that some sort of > external international oversight is required. but I argue that anyone > who can sanction another puts the other into a subordinate position. > By any definition I understand, oversight, involves a power > relationship and thus subordinates one entity to the other. Our main accountability reforms, the ones that provide harder "sanctions," would come from the no-confidence report, the GNSO reforms, improvement of the review panel, and support for Board staff. The IGF would provide a vehicle for discussing, publicizing and bringing attention to problems, which is all it has the authority to do. Thus, in effect, you have clearly failed to answer my very simple and direct question: how can IGF "subordinate" ICANN by doing this? Try to answer this question at a factual level, not a rhetorical one. > As I understand the IGF, one goal is to do all we can to balance the > power relationships in IG. I accept Parminder's arguments that it is > a 'goody goody' viewpoint to think that the power relationships have > all been eliminated in the IGF. But i believe strongly that this is a > goal - and that while we are under the umbrella of the IGF we must > strive for parity and equality of participants and organizations. (You > can call me a naive dreamer and optimist if you like) I can call you a dreamer..... but you are not the only one. Perhaps some day you will join us. And the world, will be as One... Ahem. Song over. Nothing you say above is inconsistent with what we propose. > I believe that any arrangement that mandates that ICANN report and > respond to the IGF, puts the IGF in a position that is contrary to its > intended nature. Disagree. ICANN already reports and responds to IGF, we are simply asking that the process be formalized and that ICANN formally agree to go through it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 8 12:16:06 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:46:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20080208171641.B7F54E0BAE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Wolfgang Wolfgang I know it takes quite a bit to try to respond to your elaborate theses of this kind, but I will try a few comments. The processes and forces you speak of are indeed novel and very exciting. They will reform and transform our governance systems, and if we are careful, and do it properly, transform it in the right directions. However, these processes ARE NOT the governance system, nor likely to become THE governance system. One of the classical issues of governance is the provision of public goods (I don’t like this economic concepts based reasoning for a political issue too much, but will still use it here). And the classical issue about public goods is that they cannot be produced/ provided with everyone working independently as per their own interests. We often need to shape that 'one thing' or a set of 'one things' for everyone. That is the context of policy making.... Now as we wait, as per your advise, important internet related (default or explicit) polices are being written by technology companies, by FCC (of USA) decisions, by OECD kind of exclusive clubs (they are gathering with this precise agenda in July in Seoul). ICT arena is such that whichever policy becomes dominant that becomes the default for everyone - there is often very little local, even national level, choices here. (if you doubt this, we can have a separate discussion on this). And ICTs, with the Internet being the chief paradigm, are restructuring all major social institutions, and therefore these technology polices become central to the manner of these social restructurings. Now, having described how these tech polices are being written today, it is not difficult to see in which direction these far-reaching information society related social restructuring are pre-disposed (there are sub-altern counter-directional changes as well, but the dominant forces have a lot of say in most emerging configurations). Do you not think that soon it will be too late to influence the emerging IS configurations. Would not a lot of irreparable damage done with regard to the interests of disadvantaged sections? Would not the domaint section have developed, and structurally entrenched, even more unassailable position? Has your analysis considered these not too insignificant issues? This is why political power driven governance remains necessary. It is for example necessary to enforce re-distribution polices at national level, which are unlikely to be negotiated at MS platforms. And re-distribution is only one, and the most extreme, example of fairness, equity and social justice enforcing governance system outputs. Almost all policies have some such elements. As, I said, I agree that IS provides the opportunity for great amount of governance reform. And this can mean reduced power hierarchies, and more soft power based processes. As long as these opportunities are spoken of along with the continued relevance of more clearly political (which includes legitimate power exercising) governance system there is great merit in exploring them and experimenting with them. However, any description that constructs models of governance exclusively on the marketplace principles of self-interest based negotiations is extremely inimical to the interests of disadvantaged sections, and the most dangerous statement of unabashed neo-liberalism. I think/hope you are not doing that, but then it is very useful to put appropriate riders in the right places in your arguments. So, while your model may have some validity within a larger more nuanced context, it is not right to advise those who interests are big adversely affected to just wait... for some good may still come. The choice of models from the many possible is itself a political choice and can be linked to our own interests and those whom we feel more connected to. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; Governance Caucus Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Avri: Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no confidence vote model. Wolfgang: I fully agree with Avri. Following the debate it seems to me that one reason for the misunderstandings is that we have still a very weak conceptual theoretical framework for the "bottom up policy development principle".We do not yet really understand what "bottom up" means contrasted with the century old "top down" policy principle. Bottom up was one of the main arguments of CS in WSIS. This was part of the discussion within CS (reflected in the endless debates about the role of the Plenary, Content&Themes and the CS Bureau) but it was also part of the bigger picture with regard to the relationship between the three stakeholders, in particular between CS and government. The principle of multistakeholderism emerged from this discussion. At least it was recognized as an undefined concept in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles in 2003 and constituted the basis for the formation of WGIG as a compromise between the controversial concepts of "governmental leadership" vs. "private sector leadership" in Internet Governance by the heads of states and governments. It includes certainly the bottom up policy development principle as one key element, even if this was not stated so expressis verbis. My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure out both within their own groups and among themselves how to manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with violence) became reconstructuted from a hierarchical model into a network model where nobody is on the top but everybody is linked to everyboday (and has a responsibility, accountability) to everybody but not in a way to be "overseen" or "controlled" but in a self-disciplined self-governed take and give which is in the own interest of each party and not the result of a power relationship. Important: The WGIG report added that the stakeholders are acting together in "their specific roles and responsibilities". They are working on the same issue but have different interests, doing different things and have different responsibilities. But nobody can settle the issues alone without taking the other stakeholders on board. It is not only that everybody should work together with everybody, the dilemma (or better the good thing) is, that everybody neeeds everybody and must work together, otherwise the whole process fails. During the Meissen Symposium last year we discussed at length the concept of "enhanced cooperation" and discovered two totally different models: The top down enhanced cooperation model (initiated by the EU and supported by a number of governments) is an inter-govenmental negotiation mechanism which creates a politcal and/or legal framework in which then others actors - not included in the final decison making - has to act. Madame Reding used in Athens the picture of the "concentric cirlces" with the governments in the center and the IGF at the periphery (eyebrorws among a lot of participants and she did not repeat this in Rio). The other model ist the bottom up enhanced cooperation model. It has a number of components, starting with "enhanced communication" among intersted stakeholders, moving deeper (if needed) to enhanced coordination and leading (again if needed) to informal or formal enhanced cooperation bilatrally or multilatrally, according to the special needs of the substance of a concrete issue at stake. I undestand (and agree) that one counterargument is: You are a dreamer. You do not understand the world where power politics dominates, where somebody has to give an order and others have to say "Yes Sir". However, both in the process of the making of ICANN and the WSIS process a lot of these new ideas were flying around and they got some first mechanisms for a global experiment both within ICANN (regardless of the many drawbacks) and now, on a higher level with the IGF. With other words, putting the IGF into the role of an oversight body would put the original innovative and radical democratic concept from the feets to the head. And it would destroy the IGF if the IGF would take over such a role. In contrary, the IGF is an ideal (neutral but very political) ) platform where interested partners can kick start processes of enhanced communication, enhanced coordination and enhanced cooperation (EC³) on various issues on a voluntary basis, driven by their own interest and pushed forward by the pressure of the involved and affectd stakeholder groups. Here we can move with bottom up from theory to practice. But, ujnfortunately theory is still weak, so we need more practical generated knowledge how this will work. Obviously it will work only if it is done not in a "general way" but on an "issue by issue" approach. And at the end this will lead to different governance models, dependung from the nature of the issue, but following the triangular model. As a result we will have numerous different governance models and not a unique (and centralized) one. There is not one "triangle", there are numerous diffent looking triangels ( I called this the "tower of triangels") which at the end of the day constitute a new governance model. Historically we are moving - as Mr. Hegel and Mr. Marx have said 200 years ago - from "simple structures to complex structures". ICANN - at least in my eyes - is still both an experiment and a pioneer in testing out such a triangular governance model. And regardless of all the weaknesses, it has made tremendous progress over the years (if I remember ICANN meetings in 1999, 2001 or 2003). ICANN does not need a new "master" (IGF, ITU, WICANN etc.) but further improved procedures and processes (following the inherent bottom up policy development proceeses defined in varios PDPs of SOs and ACs), it needs strong and self-confident stakeholders (including a stronger and enabled At Large community), it needs more independence and an external mechanism where the microcosmos ICANN, a triangular model in itself, can excercise trilaterlism on a higher level in a macrocosmos like the IGF. And - surprise, surprise - it works so far. If you look what the IGF in Rio produced with the seven workshops on CIR and the interesting"enhanced communication" amolng ICANN, ITU and UNESCO that you see that the "powershift", provoked by the "information revolution", which leads to this new kind of "power struggle" we are witnessing the last 20 years is leading to new not yet defined models. Be patient, history needs some time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Feb 8 15:02:37 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:02:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4D9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no > sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, > oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship > among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure > out both within their own groups and among themselves how to > manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The > traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, > private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil > society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with Wolfgang: this is all very well and good, but somewhat orthogonal to the discussion about IG Forum-based "oversight" of icann. What seems to have happened here is that you and Avri (and now, Roney Koven) have interpreted the words "soft oversight" to mean "hierarchy", contrary to the meaning of English words and the actual facts about what was proposed, and now use your self-imposed equation as an occasion to rail against hierarchy. But it is clear, it is undeniable, that IGF has no hierarchical authority over ICANN (or anything else). Manifestly, IGF holds no political or contractual authority to tell it what to do or enforce any "orders". So what, exactly, are you talking about? Indeed, the proposal we are making is an attempt to actually implement and facilitate some of the network governance ideas that you are trying to articulate. So to take your words, we are proposing that the "different groups" "sit together and figure out both within their own groups and among themselves" how to manage the concrete problem of ICANN's accountability. Similarly, others have advocated using the Forum to scrutinize other international organizations involved in IG, such as the ITU, for their conformance to WSIS principles. Oddly, we get no protests about a looming imposition of hierarchy when the ITU is brought up (we usually get a well-deserved yawn). I'll leave it to others to speculate on the causes of that disparity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 8 17:48:51 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:48:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: Following on from Milton, our modest proposal is just to recognize the implications of the fact that ICANN is already annually reporting to IGF, and already receiving feedback, and de facto, has implictly chosen to consider itself accountable to the broader Internet community through this very soft mechanism. I fail to see how there is anything top down or hierarchical about the multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum, whether or not a report is written following a workshop, and recommendations are made. In fact I bet people have done that already following workshops these past 2 years, and noone criticized that they were engaging in some form of draconian oversight for having done so. IGF will grow up some, as ICANN has, and we're just saying let's look ahead to that future. based on the trajectory we can already see by ICANN choosing to participate, and people commenting. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 02/08/08 3:02 PM >>> > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no > sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, > oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship > among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure > out both within their own groups and among themselves how to > manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The > traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, > private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil > society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with Wolfgang: this is all very well and good, but somewhat orthogonal to the discussion about IG Forum-based "oversight" of icann. What seems to have happened here is that you and Avri (and now, Roney Koven) have interpreted the words "soft oversight" to mean "hierarchy", contrary to the meaning of English words and the actual facts about what was proposed, and now use your self-imposed equation as an occasion to rail against hierarchy. But it is clear, it is undeniable, that IGF has no hierarchical authority over ICANN (or anything else). Manifestly, IGF holds no political or contractual authority to tell it what to do or enforce any "orders". So what, exactly, are you talking about? Indeed, the proposal we are making is an attempt to actually implement and facilitate some of the network governance ideas that you are trying to articulate. So to take your words, we are proposing that the "different groups" "sit together and figure out both within their own groups and among themselves" how to manage the concrete problem of ICANN's accountability. Similarly, others have advocated using the Forum to scrutinize other international organizations involved in IG, such as the ITU, for their conformance to WSIS principles. Oddly, we get no protests about a looming imposition of hierarchy when the ITU is brought up (we usually get a well-deserved yawn). I'll leave it to others to speculate on the causes of that disparity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 8 19:10:02 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:10:02 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13FA0C5B-EB76-4CF4-9DFB-95B29851DF15@Malcolm.id.au> On 08/02/2008, at 7:30 PM, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > One of the attractions of the Internet Governance Forum is its more > or less amiable anarchy. Imagining its transformation into some sort > of Internet oversight body strikes me not only as nightmarish but -- > worse still -- as unmanageable. Nothing more is suggested than that it be transformed into a body with the capacity to fulfil its mandate, inter alia to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview", to "[p]romote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes", and to "[i]dentify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations". Forgive me for continuing to parrot the Tunis Agenda, but whenever Parminder, the IGP, myself and others are accused of seeking to expand the IGF's role and to transform it into something it was never intended to be, it boggles me that the IGF's original mandate seems to have been forgotten. > Universal bottom-up democracy seems chimeric. Bottom-up democracy > works in relatively small territorial entities. It is hard to > imagine a kind of world government based on that model. It's a bit late to be having second thoughts on this now. WSIS decided that the future of Internet governance was to be multilateral (later, "multi-stakeholder"), transparent, democratic and inclusive. The IGF was to be a central institution in the evolution of the existing regime towards that model. Part of its mandate is to coordinate with bodies holding formal authority, such as domestic governments and international organisations, not in order to usurp their function, but in order to elevate them to greater levels of democratic legitimacy. This is not a form of top-down accountability at all. Rather it is a form of network or peer-to-peer accountability, in which the IGF acts as a peer of ICANN in the Internet governance regime in assessing its compliance with the WSIS process criteria and making recommendations "where appropriate". -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Feb 8 20:18:41 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (dan at musicunbound.com) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:18:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <13FA0C5B-EB76-4CF4-9DFB-95B29851DF15@Malcolm.id.au> References: <13FA0C5B-EB76-4CF4-9DFB-95B29851DF15@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <57175.75.7.55.34.1202519921.squirrel@webmail.musicunbound.com> Seems to me the top-down/bottom-up dichotomy is too simplistic to capture the nuances of representative governance at a large scale. Bottom-up, as Wolfgang says, cannot scale beyond very small sizes (i.e., "pure democracy" in the tribal or Greek city-state sense). "Top-down" systems with some hierarchy of representation therefore must ultimately be considered, however a "pure" top-down system would be absolutely authoritarian. The conundrum that "modern democracy" has been struggling to figure out for the last few centuries is how to give bottom-up citizen voice to top-down hierarchal models of governance. (In market economics this is also referred to as the "principal/agent problem" because we live in a post-Leonardo world where specialization of knowledge and function is an absolute necessity and therefore trust must actually be made to work, whether in the private or public sector, or else injustice will be done.) It's nice to think about "peer-to-peer" but ultimately I don't see how that might really work in practice, because as a concept it is (1) still too fuzzily defined, and (2) subject to the same problems as "bottom-up" forms, in the end. The first thing to recognize here is that one should not expect to discover the perfect form of large-scale governance. It's really not on the horizon, yet, so far as I know. It would be a little arrogant to expect that this group of technically-minded folks is going to invent it out of thin air after generations upon generations of people in the political/policy realms have pondered and pounded against this without perfecting it yet. The silver lining here is that by experimenting in small steps, maybe over (a very long) time there is a chance of learning something new, partly by trial and error. (But since there is large potential for error, take small steps for the trials at this point.) In some ways, the success of a hybrid system (top-down hierarchy with bottom-up access and influence) will turn on mundane things like tools of communication and the effectiveness of human use of those tools. The truly unprecedented potential of the Internet is to create governance tools that are more genuinely participatory than in the past (this "e-governance" thing that is all the rage in the last decade). But of course, the back-end must be connected to the UI, and creating the UI without connecting it to real policy-making can be ineffective at best and a sham at worst. >From my outside vantage, the IGP proposal seems sensible (especially if not over-interpreted -- yes, miscommunication is a tremendous potential here). Rather than try to label this idea as belonging to any category of models and run the risk of stumbling into ideological intransigence, it might be more productive simply to look at the details of the proposal and consider what will and won't work about the specifics. That is, consider the proposal in a bottom-up fashion rather than a top-down fashion, because the top-down concept isn't really fully formed at present. Classification, taxonomy, categorization: beware of this. It exists only after the fact. If you jump too quickly into nailing it down, you are prone to preempt real progress because you start "calling things names" (in both the neutral and negative connotations) rather than addressing their actual merits or demerits. Just my two cents in a moment between the cracks. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. On Fri, February 8, 2008 4:10 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/02/2008, at 7:30 PM, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > >> One of the attractions of the Internet Governance Forum is its more >> or less amiable anarchy. Imagining its transformation into some sort >> of Internet oversight body strikes me not only as nightmarish but -- >> worse still -- as unmanageable. > > Nothing more is suggested than that it be transformed into a body with > the capacity to fulfil its mandate, inter alia to "[i]nterface with > appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on > matters under their purview", to "[p]romote and assess, on an ongoing > basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes", and to "[i]dentify emerging issues, bring them to the > attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where > appropriate, make recommendations". > > Forgive me for continuing to parrot the Tunis Agenda, but whenever > Parminder, the IGP, myself and others are accused of seeking to expand > the IGF's role and to transform it into something it was never > intended to be, it boggles me that the IGF's original mandate seems to > have been forgotten. > >> Universal bottom-up democracy seems chimeric. Bottom-up democracy >> works in relatively small territorial entities. It is hard to >> imagine a kind of world government based on that model. > > It's a bit late to be having second thoughts on this now. WSIS > decided that the future of Internet governance was to be multilateral > (later, "multi-stakeholder"), transparent, democratic and inclusive. > The IGF was to be a central institution in the evolution of the > existing regime towards that model. Part of its mandate is to > coordinate with bodies holding formal authority, such as domestic > governments and international organisations, not in order to usurp > their function, but in order to elevate them to greater levels of > democratic legitimacy. > > This is not a form of top-down accountability at all. Rather it is a > form of network or peer-to-peer accountability, in which the IGF acts > as a peer of ICANN in the Internet governance regime in assessing its > compliance with the WSIS process criteria and making recommendations > "where appropriate". > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 8 22:06:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:36:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080209030718.C5E43E1D8F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri > Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then > disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that > includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no > confidence vote model. Since we seem to agree that political accountability and oversight is necessary, lets try and explore where the difference really lies, going beyond Tunis Mandate's vocabulary and such superficial arguments. Fine, I am ready to agree with an independent appeals mechanism. Names don't mater. What would in your opinion be its composition. Will it again be elected by the ICANN noncom or a similar body with all its structural defects. Or would this body include a boarder political spectrum reflecting all the interests and groups that are implicated. If that is to happen than would it be much different from the IGF. More structured perhaps, but in that case we can try and compare it with the only structured body in the IGF, the MAG (as its composition is supposed to be and not as it is). Will such a body not also be paralyzed by the same kind of political divisiveness about which we often have heard long lectures in IGF consultations which keep warning us against moving an inch towards trying to fulfill any of its mandate that may involve the least of structured activity - like the recs part, for instance. So proposing a different name will not solve the problem, unless in the solution a different expertise-based non-political (whatever it means) approach to accountability is hidden, which of course is not acceptable to those who seek broader political accountability. In fact ,going back to IGP's proposal, I think even IGP proposal addresses only one part of the oversight problem (perhaps deliberately so, since it may be useful to go in small steps). Political oversight should be able to enforce accountability but it should also be able to provide policy. These two tasks are related but also very different. A good accountability system will itself go in the direction of ensuring that the implicated body keeps its policies on some kind of a right track. However, there are times when clearer and specific policy making is required, and an accountability mechanism itself cannot ensure that. Any mature democratic set up tends towards a greater institutional specialization for this purpose. So, while the ICANN outreach systems can have an accountability extracting function (which we think outreach to narrow political constituencies of choice and mutual comfort, and therefore is not wholly legitimate) as can an IGF based system (while is politically more diverse and better represents all implicated interests, and therefore recommended), neither is able to do clear policy making function as and when required in the areas of ICANN working. That, along with global Internet policy making in other areas, remains a requirement whose solutions are still to be sought. Given that requirements of an appropriate institutional mechanism for global Internet policy making are very complex, it is better if we are more open to out-of-box thinking, and mutually seeking new or innovative solutions. So you are partly right when you say in another email, in context of my quoting of para 71 calling for performance reports by ICANN and others that > I believe Parminder has confounded two separate mandates; the IGF > mandate and the enhanced cooperation mandate. I therefore do not find > his argument convincing. Though I can easily see how it might be > compelling to some. I think the enhanced cooperation formula is much > more complicated then that. Para 71 is about enhanced coop (EC) but the choice of watertight separation of EC parts from IGF parts of TA is itself an interpretation that some people has made because it suits them politically. Both suggestions come in relation to the felt need of a complex public policy institutional ecology at the global level for the Internet. And we know that both the understanding and level of consensus were inadequate at the time when WSIS had to be quickly closed which is the cause of the ambiguities of Tunis text. And where we go from here in further interpretations is a matter of our political preferences, whereby the implication of your statement 'Though I can easily see how it might be > compelling to some' is right on the dot. So, as a first step we before we negotiate our political differences it is important to examine and acknowledge our political positions and preferences. This will help the cause all around. For CS there have been two main agendas for IG. To prevent governments from calling the shots, and to get progressive policies in IG area to address issues of rights, equity, social justice etc. There is a clear trade-of here. If we just ensure that no clear policy system is allowed to shape up because it brings with it the possibility to allowing governments to go closer to levers of controls over the Internet, the objective 1 above is met. (that's what most active CS actors have done.) Even if this means that by default polices are getting made and 'enforced', and such polices almost always favor already dominant sections. Other people may be more eager, as a new IS institutional ecology shapes up, to ensure urgent progressive policy interventions that ensure the above values. This may however come with the danger that governments are able to find some ways of being in better position of exercising some authority on matters Internet. How different players are responding to the situation here is underwritten by their political preferences. And it is good to occasionally examine and discuss these. Both sets of objectives may be important to all CS people/ groups, but to some one is more important, and to others, the other. So they are ready for different trade-offs. In this context, when I say the performance reporting spoken of in para 71 can be done to IGF, I don't see why it cant be even if it under the EC framework. EC framework as you say is very complex, the issue is what are be doing to engage or not engage with that complexity. And Why? EC framework will involve policy making parts, will involve monitoring and performance reporting parts, policy deliberation part etc.... and it can have close contacts and overlaps with IGF, preserving a good amount of useful specializations, why not When Wolfgang and McTim happily claim that whats happening at IGF itself is EC why it is more acceptable to those who otherwise protest strongly to keep EC and IGF separate. So, the real issue is not how separate they are, but how the proposed institutional systems play against our political preferences. I make bold to propose that those who today may proffer the (implied) view that performance reporting meant in paras 71 should not be done to IGF, but to someone else in the EC framework, say this only because we know there is no EC framework (which we all know would be more inter-governmental than IGF). Were there actually such a system in place, and in that context if a discussion was to happen whether ICANN, in pursuance of requirements of para 71, should report to a EC system (whatever it means) all those opposed the present IGP proposal may actually be heard arguing well, have we considered the possibility that such reporting can be done to IGF because it is more open, has more stakeholders, is more appropriate for a wider and more informed and less biased inputs etc etc. Goes back to how are arguments in this present discussion just come from what we are really trying to achieve here... almost exclusively only to keep govs at bay, and within that primary and over-ridding objectives its fine if some small gains can come by, or, on the other hand, whether one has a belief in the necessity of legitimate political system that alone can safeguard the interests of disadvantaged people/ groups. And if we have to mutually negotiate in-between political positions lets do that, rather than keep arguing on the 'inherent correctness' and logicality of one proposal or the other, with a smug assumption that the basic 'rightful concerns' are the same for all (Avri, I am not saying that you are doing so. This is just the rhetorical tail of a braider argument.) Going back to your email > I see that as > something precious that should not be overloaded with other functions. It all depends on what is more precious to whom, the existing forum functions/ outputs (many have great amount of misgiving if any such species does exist - or whether the IGF has not just come to represent a co-opted body which gives the impression of participation/ legitimacy without doing it, and therefore probably doing more harm than good to this cause) or some other possible (mandated) functions which you opine will be an unnecessary overload. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:20 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > > > On 7 Feb 2008, at 18:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal. > > For you to say i misunderstand what you say is fine. i think that may > even be a mantra between us. > > > And I think your > > misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness > > that > > for you to say my misunderstanding is fueled by defensiveness is > offensive > ( > meaning the opposite of defensive, > and not meaning that you have offended me. > whenever someone calls another defensive, > they are on the attack > what can we say in response? > - oh no, i am not defensive. > - gee, that sounds defensive to me > ) > > > > > seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to > > it by internationalization. > > > As I think you know, i have personally advocated internationalization > for a long time, though i admit i am adverse to any sort of inter- > governmentalism. > > > > > > > How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's > > accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the > > IGF? > > If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too soft > > on > > ICANN. > > > > In your letter you argue that ICANN is not ready to be independent. > > quote > IGP, like many other stakeholders, > does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully > independent yet. > end quote > > furthermore you state that it needs to be accountable to someone, a > point to which i agree. > > quote > The problem is more fundamental and systemic. > It can be summed > up in two words: external accountability. > end quote > > you go on to define what you mean by External accountability: > > quote > External accountability refers to the ability of members > the Internet-using public to effectively sanction the > organization > unquote > > I can even agree with this. i can even agree that some sort of > external international oversight is required. but I argue that anyone > who can sanction another puts the other into a subordinate position. > By any definition I understand, oversight, involves a power > relationship and thus subordinates one entity to the other. > > As I understand the IGF, one goal is to do all we can to balance the > power relationships in IG. I accept Parminder's arguments that it is > a 'goody goody' viewpoint to think that the power relationships have > all been eliminated in the IGF. But i believe strongly that this is a > goal - and that while we are under the umbrella of the IGF we must > strive for parity and equality of participants and organizations. (You > can call me a naive dreamer and optimist if you like) > > I believe that any arrangement that mandates that ICANN report and > respond to the IGF, puts the IGF in a position that is contrary to its > intended nature. So while I agree that ICANN may need to report to > someone I do not see how the IGF could accept such a responsibility > and remain the IGF as defined by the TA and its initial meetings. > > Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then > disagreement, for information sake, i tend to favor a model that > includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no > confidence vote model. I have not bothered to write this to NTIA, > because I don't expect them to care one whit what i may have to say. > > > > ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely > > active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism. > > I can't speak for ICANN, or anyone else for that matter, but they do > seem very open to the opinions and criticism of IGF participants and > others. I think that this is the soft power that people speak of - the > soft power of people using reason and being able to help an > organization see itself from external viewpoints. i would hope that > any participant in the IGF, not just ICANN, would be able to improve > [it, him, her]self based on the multiple perspectives available in the > the IGF. > > > > > > > In terms of becoming a "decision-making body" again I think this is a > > massive overstatement. Parminder has demonstrated conclusively that > > IGF's mandate includes reviewing and assessing the accountability of > > Internet governance insitutions. > > I believe Parminder has confounded two separate mandates; the IGF > mandate and the enhanced cooperation mandate. I therefore do not find > his argument convincing. Though I can easily see how it might be > compelling to some. I think the enhanced cooperation formula is much > more complicated then that. > > > But IGF has no binding authority or > > leverage (comparable to ICANN's control of the root zone, for example) > > with which to enforce its recommendations. So in what sense does it > > become decision-making. > > I believe that putting it in the position to sanction would involve > decision making. > > > > > > > If IGF is nothing more than a completely non-threatening space where > > people talk, tell me what it does that isn't done better by the > > complex > > of academic and industry conferences that come along by the dozens > > each > > year? > > Because academic conferences only have an academic scope and industry > conferences only have a private sector scope, whereas the IGF has a > global multistakeholder scope. and because the IGF is the first to > have a scope that brings together civil society, international > organizations, the private sector, IGOs, the academy, techies and > governments into a single non-threatening space. I see that as > something precious that should not be overloaded with other functions. > > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 8 22:07:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:07:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDFDE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EDFDE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080209030711.GC23095@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [08/02/08 10:46 -0500]: >Avri, you engage in some very fragmented and selective quotation of our >position. Not that she did it .. but even if she did it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Selective quoting is one of IGP (and your) stock in trade, anyway. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Feb 9 00:32:34 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:32:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4D9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4D9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2008 11:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > > > My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no > > sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, > > oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship > > among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure > > out both within their own groups and among themselves how to > > manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The > > traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, > > private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil > > society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with > > Wolfgang: > this is all very well and good, but somewhat orthogonal to the discussion about IG Forum-based "oversight" of icann. What seems to have happened here is that you and Avri (and now, Roney Koven) You seem to have left out a few other "usual suspects" ;-) MM: have interpreted the words "soft oversight" to mean "hierarchy", contrary to the meaning of English words and the actual facts about what was proposed, and now use your self-imposed equation as an occasion to rail against hierarchy. But it is clear, it is undeniable, that IGF has no hierarchical authority over ICANN (or anything else). Manifestly, IGF holds no political or contractual authority to tell it what to do or enforce any "orders". So what, exactly, are you talking about? Maybe this?: "5. Last but not least, ICANN and the UN Internet Governance Forum should agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning ICANN's record and accountability." from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf or this: "We suggest, therefore, that a new external oversight arrangement for ICANN be set up by leveraging the innovation and experimentation of the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for discussion, consideration of evidence and the development of non-binding reports and recommendations. The IGF was given an open-ended mandate to explore emerging issues of Internet governance in a different way than traditional intergovernmental bodies." Para 71 of the TA says, inter alia: "The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports." I assumer this means ICANN AND the ITU. ICANN is cooperating, is the ITU reporting as fully? In any case TA says "requested", while your proposal says, inter alia: "All that is required is that ICANN be mandated to report". AFAIAC, requested is much softer than mandated, hence methinks your proposal is outside the scope of the TAs description of the IGF. > > Indeed, the proposal we are making is an attempt to actually implement and facilitate some of the network governance ideas that you are trying to articulate. So to take your words, we are proposing that the "different groups" "sit together and figure out both within their own groups and among themselves" how to manage the concrete problem of ICANN's accountability. > > Similarly, others have advocated using the Forum to scrutinize other international organizations involved in IG, such as the ITU, for their conformance to WSIS principles. One, other, I think, but if IGP would like to tilt at that particular windmill, I will support it 100%. So, #5 above could read: "Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning ITU's record and accountability." Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would venture to say very few gov't reps would. AFAIK, ICAN is much more multi-stakeholder, bottom -up and "democratic" than the ITU. Why not focus on the ITU and bring it up to ICANN "spec" before trying to move ICANN? >Oddly, we get no protests about a looming imposition of >hierarchy when the ITU is brought up (we usually get a >well-deserved yawn). I'll leave it to others to speculate on the >causes of that disparity. Perhaps because folk believe it's such a non-starter? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Feb 9 00:44:16 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:44:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4D9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080209054416.GA28045@hserus.net> McTim [09/02/08 08:32 +0300]: >"5. Last but not least, ICANN and the UN Internet Governance Forum >should agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation >concerning ICANN's record and accountability." Any "soft control" in a proposal that Milton churns out will involve hard control .. preferably according to his (aka "the IGP"'s) "goals" srs ("habitual" "overuse" "of" "quotes" "in" "typical" "milton" "style") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 9 06:10:29 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:10:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/9/08 6:32 AM, "McTim" wrote: > from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > "Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should > agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning > ITU's record and accountability." > > Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would > venture to say very few gov't reps would. Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA mandate language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable given the dearth of alternative mechanisms of external accountability, and that soft oversight does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make it viable. Which of the following players could be expected to support requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 1) the USG, 2) the EU, 3) other OECD governments, 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the technical/administrative nexus, 6) ICANN leadership, staff and constituencies (unless the oversight is really, really soft) 6) IGF leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power grab" headlines, etc), 8) other international organizations concerned about the possible precedent, etc...What are the incentives pro and con for each of these players, what is the scenario under which consensus among them all emerges? I'm open to persuasion, but as with the framework convention idea, it's hard to identify the conditions under which a winning coalition of players content with the status quo wouldn't just view this as an unwelcome Pandora's box and say no thanks, internal accountability to GAC and other constituencies is sufficient. And assuming the political support could be lined up, then we have all the operational questions about how IGF as currently configured could manage the process, how would this impact the IGF process more generally, what does it mean to report to an anyone-can-come conference rather than an organization with a defined membership and solid legal foundation, what obligations would ICANN have to do xyz because a few participants stood up and said we think abc and how would those be enforced, etc. Maybe IGP could write a second paper that puts some meat on the bones to facilitate a more grounded discussion? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 9 07:08:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:38:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080209120853.BFD8BE049A@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill Your analysis of the current power structure and their expected stance is obviously right, and an (or THE) important issue here. No one expects all these entrenched players to jump to the idea and welcome it with open arms. But we all realize that we have a major global issue/ problem at hand - global Internet policy making, and a poor/non-existent institutional mechanism for it today - and that its solution will be complex, and we can only move towards it by-and-by... In these circumstances, such ideas as the present IGP proposal are floated with the expectation of building some political mass around it, and then it may/can get used as one possible alternative when the complexity of the above problem presents itself in stronger -have-to-do-something-about-it-terms or major players simply get relatively more well-disposed to the need of solving it in an evolutionary manner. Strong early skeptic-ism on such proposals within CS, assuming they are otherwise a positive development from CS point of view, will not allow even the shaping of them as one possible alternatives to be considered at some stage. One of such possible stages can be when it becomes no longer possible to keep avoiding the enhanced cooperation (EC) thing. Though while I myself hope that this results in a relatively stronger and clearer, as well as MS and transparent, institutional mechanism, on never knows in which direction will the negotiations go.... It is entirely possible that under the political imperative of having something to show against the clear injunction in TA on EC, like the one on reporting on performance (yes, towards/on EC, but that can mean many things) developing a structured reporting arrangement anchored in the IGF may look like a good compromise, and lets say US, EU, other OECD countries(among your power configuration), other govs and many elements of CS agree to this arrangement. It may put pressure on others to cone around... That's just thinking of one scenario. BTW, and we have has this discussion earlier (though inconclusively), you have been championing the 'assess IG institutions for adherence to WSIS principles' mandate of IGF. I have never quite understood what exactly are the kind of processes you envisage and associate with this activity. Are these very different in substance from the present IGP proposal. WSIS principles, and I include in the term 'wsis principles' complete WSIS docs with all its substantive high level principles expressed in declaration of principles etc. Assessing adherence to all these principles is a good basis of soft political oversight of IGF over ICANN. I am sure that in your advocacy for IGF taking steps towards fulfilling the 'assessing for WSIS principles' mandate you mean some kind of structured arrangements and some clear obligation of the implicated institutions to submit to them. If not so, there is no one and nothing stopping anyone from assessing whatever one wants to at a workshop at the IGF. Was just wondering if there may be some space for exploring possibilities of some degree of common ground on this issue among CS members and groups. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 4:40 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > > Hi, > > On 2/9/08 6:32 AM, "McTim" wrote: > > > from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > "Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should > > agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning > > ITU's record and accountability." > > > > Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would > > venture to say very few gov't reps would. > > Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA > mandate > language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable given the dearth > of > alternative mechanisms of external accountability, and that soft oversight > does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make > it viable. Which of the following players could be expected to support > requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 1) the USG, 2) the EU, 3) other OECD > governments, 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms > that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the > technical/administrative nexus, 6) ICANN leadership, staff and > constituencies (unless the oversight is really, really soft) 6) IGF > leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power grab" > headlines, etc), 8) other international organizations concerned about the > possible precedent, etc...What are the incentives pro and con for each of > these players, what is the scenario under which consensus among them all > emerges? I'm open to persuasion, but as with the framework convention > idea, > it's hard to identify the conditions under which a winning coalition of > players content with the status quo wouldn't just view this as an > unwelcome > Pandora's box and say no thanks, internal accountability to GAC and other > constituencies is sufficient. And assuming the political support could be > lined up, then we have all the operational questions about how IGF as > currently configured could manage the process, how would this impact the > IGF > process more generally, what does it mean to report to an anyone-can-come > conference rather than an organization with a defined membership and solid > legal foundation, what obligations would ICANN have to do xyz because a > few > participants stood up and said we think abc and how would those be > enforced, > etc. > > Maybe IGP could write a second paper that puts some meat on the bones to > facilitate a more grounded discussion? > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 9 08:01:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:31:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Adam The link takes me to an off-limit page.... and now when the IGF home page also says that extracts are regularly available I still cant find them. Thanks Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there > >before and I missed it): > > > >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are > >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how > >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it > >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. > > > >Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation > >that were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. > > > > The second batch of messages from the advisory group list is > available The > thread continues and will be updated in a week. There's a new section > on the forum for such updates. > > > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 9 08:15:18 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:15:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 09/02/2008, at 10:01 PM, Parminder wrote: > Adam > > The link takes me to an off-limit page.... and now when the IGF home > page > also says that extracts are regularly available I still cant find > them. > Thanks I got that too, but then I backed up to the main forum page and followed the links from there, and lo and behold there it was. It is especially interesting because the Advisory Group considers (at the suggestion of Marcus!) moving the majority of its discussions to a new, openly-archived (!) mailing list... and then decides against it. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 9 08:38:10 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:38:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I can see the thread when I'm not logged in to the forum, but can't when I am (no clue what's going on, but I'll ask the secretariat to check.) Please see attached file, the second digest. Adam >Adam > >The link takes me to an off-limit page.... and now when the IGF home page >also says that extracts are regularly available I still cant find them. >Thanks > >Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers >> >> >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there >> >before and I missed it): >> > >> >"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are >> >available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how >> >this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it >> >is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006. >> > >> >Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation >> >that were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. >> >> >> >> The second batch of messages from the advisory group list is > > available The >> thread continues and will be updated in a week. There's a new section >> on the forum for such updates. >> >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AGdiscussion.30.01.-03.02.2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 79021 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 9 10:14:04 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:14:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >On 09/02/2008, at 10:01 PM, Parminder wrote: > >>Adam >> >>The link takes me to an off-limit page.... and now when the IGF home page >>also says that extracts are regularly available I still cant find them. >>Thanks > > >I got that too, but then I backed up to the main forum page and >followed the links from there, and lo and behold there it was. > >It is especially interesting because the Advisory Group considers >(at the suggestion of Marcus!) moving the majority of its >discussions to a new, openly-archived (!) mailing list... > >and then decides against it. I'm one of those against completely opening the list (writer A). I support the suggestion for two lists: one used for most discussions would have a public archive (I don't particularly care if anonymous or not, not thought through how it would work); one used for discussion of speakers and the like would be closed. Made the same comment about open/closed MAG lists on the caucus list last year. The only email I've sent to the MAG list I wouldn't want made public are those about speakers (and perhaps some comments about funding/funders.) But I think some members, probably govt reps, would be even more reluctant to post than they are now if their words were public, and perhaps all we'd get from some would be official statements/party line. If we want "multi-stakeholder" to work it seems a good idea to give them room to get used to new ways of working. Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would be good to hear. What should it be, 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed? 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion summarized if appropriate.) Expect there are other options. Thanks, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 9 11:25:31 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:25:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Message-ID: Friends, IGP proposal explicitly endorses ICANN's objective to end the JPA as soon as possible, remember. One can guess ICANN will welcome CS allies towards achieving that objective. We encourage your own responses to NTIA. I bet we can all agree: 1) ICANN participated in IGF meetings 1 + 2, and will be at 3, 4 & 5. 2) ICANN shared information, and was given feedback at 1 & 2, and this will continue at 3, 4, & 5. 3) Reports were written following workshops at 1 & 2, and...you get the idea by now. So we all agree, right? Then this is our modest proposition: 4) IF NTIA were in its own report and decision on what to do with the JPA, to acknowledge those points, that would be good for ICANN, for IGF, for CS, and the global Internet community. Will NTIA immediately adopt our simple logic? Why not? The status quo is objected to by ICANN, change is objected to by US special interests. And global CS will side with US special interests in the NTIA proceeding? I doubt that, once people stop and reflect. This will not immediately change the balance of forces in global Internet politics. It's just one small step for ICANN, and yeah maybe, one great leap for IGF. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 02/09/08 7:08 AM >>> Bill Your analysis of the current power structure and their expected stance is obviously right, and an (or THE) important issue here. No one expects all these entrenched players to jump to the idea and welcome it with open arms. But we all realize that we have a major global issue/ problem at hand - global Internet policy making, and a poor/non-existent institutional mechanism for it today - and that its solution will be complex, and we can only move towards it by-and-by... In these circumstances, such ideas as the present IGP proposal are floated with the expectation of building some political mass around it, and then it may/can get used as one possible alternative when the complexity of the above problem presents itself in stronger -have-to-do-something-about-it-terms or major players simply get relatively more well-disposed to the need of solving it in an evolutionary manner. Strong early skeptic-ism on such proposals within CS, assuming they are otherwise a positive development from CS point of view, will not allow even the shaping of them as one possible alternatives to be considered at some stage. One of such possible stages can be when it becomes no longer possible to keep avoiding the enhanced cooperation (EC) thing. Though while I myself hope that this results in a relatively stronger and clearer, as well as MS and transparent, institutional mechanism, on never knows in which direction will the negotiations go.... It is entirely possible that under the political imperative of having something to show against the clear injunction in TA on EC, like the one on reporting on performance (yes, towards/on EC, but that can mean many things) developing a structured reporting arrangement anchored in the IGF may look like a good compromise, and lets say US, EU, other OECD countries(among your power configuration), other govs and many elements of CS agree to this arrangement. It may put pressure on others to cone around... That's just thinking of one scenario. BTW, and we have has this discussion earlier (though inconclusively), you have been championing the 'assess IG institutions for adherence to WSIS principles' mandate of IGF. I have never quite understood what exactly are the kind of processes you envisage and associate with this activity. Are these very different in substance from the present IGP proposal. WSIS principles, and I include in the term 'wsis principles' complete WSIS docs with all its substantive high level principles expressed in declaration of principles etc. Assessing adherence to all these principles is a good basis of soft political oversight of IGF over ICANN. I am sure that in your advocacy for IGF taking steps towards fulfilling the 'assessing for WSIS principles' mandate you mean some kind of structured arrangements and some clear obligation of the implicated institutions to submit to them. If not so, there is no one and nothing stopping anyone from assessing whatever one wants to at a workshop at the IGF. Was just wondering if there may be some space for exploring possibilities of some degree of common ground on this issue among CS members and groups. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 4:40 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN > > Hi, > > On 2/9/08 6:32 AM, "McTim" wrote: > > > from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf > > > "Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should > > agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning > > ITU's record and accountability." > > > > Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would > > venture to say very few gov't reps would. > > Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA > mandate > language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable given the dearth > of > alternative mechanisms of external accountability, and that soft oversight > does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make > it viable. Which of the following players could be expected to support > requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 1) the USG, 2) the EU, 3) other OECD > governments, 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms > that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the > technical/administrative nexus, 6) ICANN leadership, staff and > constituencies (unless the oversight is really, really soft) 6) IGF > leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power grab" > headlines, etc), 8) other international organizations concerned about the > possible precedent, etc...What are the incentives pro and con for each of > these players, what is the scenario under which consensus among them all > emerges? I'm open to persuasion, but as with the framework convention > idea, > it's hard to identify the conditions under which a winning coalition of > players content with the status quo wouldn't just view this as an > unwelcome > Pandora's box and say no thanks, internal accountability to GAC and other > constituencies is sufficient. And assuming the political support could be > lined up, then we have all the operational questions about how IGF as > currently configured could manage the process, how would this impact the > IGF > process more generally, what does it mean to report to an anyone-can-come > conference rather than an organization with a defined membership and solid > legal foundation, what obligations would ICANN have to do xyz because a > few > participants stood up and said we think abc and how would those be > enforced, > etc. > > Maybe IGP could write a second paper that puts some meat on the bones to > facilitate a more grounded discussion? > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 9 12:15:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:15:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE027@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA > mandate language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable > given the dearth of alternative mechanisms of external > accountability, and that soft oversight > does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make > it viable. The politics are not a cakewalk, but a much stronger alignment than you suggest. > Which of the following players could be expected to support > requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: > 1) the USG, Probably not, but two things to take into account: a change in administration is possible, and if ICANN is released from its MoU the wishes of the USG would have very little to say about whether ICANN agrees to be reviewed or not. Indeed, one possible scenario is that the US supports a more independent ICANN but the rest of the world does not, so if the US unilaterally ends the MoU the rest of the world may want to support new forms of ovesight, but realize that it will not get traditional intergovernmental oversight may turn to the IGF. > 2) the EU, I see no fundamental clash between this proposal and what I understand to be the position of the EU on Internet governance matters. In fact, EU is known to not like the GAC model. > 3) other OECD > governments, I can think of several who might like it, but decline to name them for strategic reasons > 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms > that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the > technical/administrative nexus, I.e., you mean ISOC and ICC, which is often pretty much the same thing. Probably not sympathetic to the idea initially, but not adamantly hostile to it, either. Business is not monolithic on this issue. A lot of the US-based multinationals and IPR interests want to retain a strong role for Washington. Others don't, and an IGF role might be perceived as a better alternative. > 6) ICANN leadership, staff and Obviously, icann management would prefer NO oversight but are unlikely to get it. So put the choice to them clearly: do you want US DoC oversight or IGF oversight? I have some reasons to believe that they would prefer IGF soft oversight. > 6) IGF leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power > grab" headlines, etc), In general, I would see IGF leadership's attitude toward this as being driven by the actors who participate in its consultations and forums. Leadership was afraid to include CIR in its agenda the first year but got pushed to do it the second year. The sky didn't fall, it was in fact healthy. Same goes for this issue. > 8) other international organizations concerned about the > possible precedent, etc. Can't see this playing a major role. For most of them -- including ITU -- Internet governance is not at the center of what they do. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 9 12:26:41 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:26:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4BA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC4D9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE02A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > MM: > have interpreted the words "soft oversight" to mean "hierarchy", > contrary to the meaning of English words and the actual facts about > what was proposed, and now use your self-imposed equation as an > occasion to rail against hierarchy. But it is clear, it is undeniable, > that IGF has no hierarchical authority over ICANN (or anything else). > Manifestly, IGF holds no political or contractual authority to tell it > what to do or enforce any "orders". So what, exactly, are you talking > about? > > Maybe this?: > > "5. Last but not least, ICANN and the UN Internet Governance Forum > should agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation > concerning ICANN's record and accountability." Does "review and public consultation" sound like hierarchical authority to you? Seems like you're making my point for me. > or this: > > "We suggest, therefore, that a new external oversight arrangement for > ICANN be set up by leveraging the innovation and experimentation of > the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is an appropriately neutral, > nongovernmental platform for discussion, consideration of evidence and > the development of non-binding reports and recommendations. OmiGod! "discussion, consideration of evidence and the development of non-binding reports and recommendations." Sounds like tanks rolling into Marina Del Rey to me! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 9 12:29:13 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:29:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <47ad97d6.2009360a.6bff.0ad8SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On 2/9/08 1:08 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Bill > > Your analysis of the current power structure and their expected stance is > obviously right, and an (or THE) important issue here. No one expects all > these entrenched players to jump to the idea and welcome it with open arms. > > But we all realize that we have a major global issue/ problem at hand - > global Internet policy making, and a poor/non-existent institutional > mechanism for it today - and that its solution will be complex, and we can > only move towards it by-and-by... > > In these circumstances, such ideas as the present IGP proposal are floated > with the expectation of building some political mass around it, and then it Well ok, I guess stating a position and then just expecting it to build political mass is one way to approach advocacy in a heatedly contested space. Another approach is to try to persuade people that it's both functionally desirable and politically conceivable before expecting them to embrace it. I was just asking to be persuaded, conversation before conversion. > may/can get used as one possible alternative when the complexity of the > above problem presents itself in stronger > -have-to-do-something-about-it-terms or major players simply get relatively > more well-disposed to the need of solving it in an evolutionary manner. > > Strong early skeptic-ism on such proposals within CS, assuming they are > otherwise a positive development from CS point of view, will not allow even > the shaping of them as one possible alternatives to be considered at some > stage. Friendly skepticism properly received can also lead to reconsideration and strengthening of advocacy positions, in the same way that academics send draft papers out to their friends for a bit of hammering in order to identify weak bits and debug. I expect Team Syracuse gets that. In contrast, I'm kind of not getting your view of how this should work. People should simply suspend thought and get in line with any nominally progressive proposal as is? > One of such possible stages can be when it becomes no longer possible to > keep avoiding the enhanced cooperation (EC) thing. Though while I myself > hope that this results in a relatively stronger and clearer, as well as MS > and transparent, institutional mechanism, on never knows in which direction > will the negotiations go.... It is entirely possible that under the > political imperative of having something to show against the clear > injunction in TA on EC, like the one on reporting on performance (yes, > towards/on EC, but that can mean many things) developing a structured > reporting arrangement anchored in the IGF may look like a good compromise, > and lets say US, EU, other OECD countries(among your power configuration), > other govs and many elements of CS agree to this arrangement. It may put > pressure on others to cone around... > > That's just thinking of one scenario. > > BTW, and we have has this discussion earlier (though inconclusively), you > have been championing the 'assess IG institutions for adherence to WSIS > principles' mandate of IGF. I have never quite understood what exactly are > the kind of processes you envisage and associate with this activity. Are > these very different in substance from the present IGP proposal. WSIS > principles, and I include in the term 'wsis principles' complete WSIS docs > with all its substantive high level principles expressed in declaration of > principles etc. Assessing adherence to all these principles is a good basis > of soft political oversight of IGF over ICANN. I am sure that in your > advocacy for IGF taking steps towards fulfilling the 'assessing for WSIS > principles' mandate you mean some kind of structured arrangements and some > clear obligation of the implicated institutions to submit to them. If not > so, there is no one and nothing stopping anyone from assessing whatever one > wants to at a workshop at the IGF. Sure I'd have liked a structured process and the institutional capacity to carry it out. But that's not going to happen for a number of reasons that are not unrelated to what we're talking about, so any effort along these lines would have to be pursued via other avenues. Moreover, proposing to assess only ICANN from this standpoint piles on additional burdens. > Was just wondering if there may be some space for exploring possibilities of > some degree of common ground on this issue among CS members and groups. Of course there is. I think it'd be interesting to have an open ended discussion about a range of options, including IGP's, for post-JPA and related matters. In fact, if enough people are going to be here on the Monday prior to the consultation, I might be able to provide a conference room at the institute and libations etc for a brainstorming session. If there's any interest... Cheers, Bill > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 4:40 PM >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN >> >> Hi, >> >> On 2/9/08 6:32 AM, "McTim" wrote: >> >>> from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf >> >>> "Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should >>> agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning >>> ITU's record and accountability." >>> >>> Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would >>> venture to say very few gov't reps would. >> >> Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA >> mandate >> language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable given the dearth >> of >> alternative mechanisms of external accountability, and that soft oversight >> does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make >> it viable. Which of the following players could be expected to support >> requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 1) the USG, 2) the EU, 3) other OECD >> governments, 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms >> that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the >> technical/administrative nexus, 6) ICANN leadership, staff and >> constituencies (unless the oversight is really, really soft) 6) IGF >> leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power grab" >> headlines, etc), 8) other international organizations concerned about the >> possible precedent, etc...What are the incentives pro and con for each of >> these players, what is the scenario under which consensus among them all >> emerges? I'm open to persuasion, but as with the framework convention >> idea, >> it's hard to identify the conditions under which a winning coalition of >> players content with the status quo wouldn't just view this as an >> unwelcome >> Pandora's box and say no thanks, internal accountability to GAC and other >> constituencies is sufficient. And assuming the political support could be >> lined up, then we have all the operational questions about how IGF as >> currently configured could manage the process, how would this impact the >> IGF >> process more generally, what does it mean to report to an anyone-can-come >> conference rather than an organization with a defined membership and solid >> legal foundation, what obligations would ICANN have to do xyz because a >> few >> participants stood up and said we think abc and how would those be >> enforced, >> etc. >> >> Maybe IGP could write a second paper that puts some meat on the bones to >> facilitate a more grounded discussion? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 9 12:56:51 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:56:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE027@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, Thanks, this is useful in understanding your thinking. On 2/9/08 6:15 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Right. While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA >> mandate language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable >> given the dearth of alternative mechanisms of external >> accountability, and that soft oversight >> does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to > make >> it viable. > > The politics are not a cakewalk, but a much stronger alignment than you > suggest. > >> Which of the following players could be expected to support >> requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: > >> 1) the USG, > > Probably not, but two things to take into account: a change in > administration is possible, and if ICANN is released from its MoU the > wishes of the USG would have very little to say about whether ICANN > agrees to be reviewed or not. Indeed, one possible scenario is that the > US supports a more independent ICANN but the rest of the world does not, > so if the US unilaterally ends the MoU the rest of the world may want to > support new forms of ovesight, but realize that it will not get > traditional intergovernmental oversight may turn to the IGF. Maybe. But I'd be mighty surprised if even Obama's people were prepared to recommend something that could be so readily misconstrued as "replacing US sovereign authority with (soft) UN oversight." Which influential voices in DC are likely to want to make that case, especially after K St. et al get started with the 'black helicopters over Marina Del Rey' press releases. >> 2) the EU, > > I see no fundamental clash between this proposal and what I understand > to be the position of the EU on Internet governance matters. In fact, EU > is known to not like the GAC model. Sure, but not liking the GAC model is not the same as thinking the IGF conference could or should expand its mission in this manner. >> 3) other OECD >> governments, > > I can think of several who might like it, but decline to name them for > strategic reasons Well, maybe one, but others... >> 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms >> that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the >> technical/administrative nexus, > > I.e., you mean ISOC and ICC, which is often pretty much the same thing. > Probably not sympathetic to the idea initially, but not adamantly > hostile to it, either. Business is not monolithic on this issue. A lot > of the US-based multinationals and IPR interests want to retain a strong > role for Washington. Others don't, and an IGF role might be perceived as > a better alternative. Here I'm more skeptical than you, unless the oversight is so soft as to be meaningless. >> 6) ICANN leadership, staff and > > Obviously, icann management would prefer NO oversight but are unlikely > to get it. So put the choice to them clearly: do you want US DoC > oversight or IGF oversight? I have some reasons to believe that they > would prefer IGF soft oversight. Not sure you can restrict their choice set to this binary by assumption. >> 6) IGF leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN > power > grab" headlines, etc), > > In general, I would see IGF leadership's attitude toward this as being > driven by the actors who participate in its consultations and forums. > Leadership was afraid to include CIR in its agenda the first year but > got pushed to do it the second year. The sky didn't fall, it was in fact > healthy. Same goes for this issue. It seems different and more easily viewed as threatening to the IGF than a 90 minute panel loaded with ICANN proponents. >> 8) other international organizations concerned about the >> possible precedent, etc. > > Can't see this playing a major role. For most of them -- including ITU > -- Internet governance is not at the center of what they do. Not major, but not supportive either, which can echo through missions etc. Anyway, thanks, we'll see if it gets traction. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Feb 8 05:20:16 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:20:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842597C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry, the dates for the summer school are JULY 25 - July 31, 2008 w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 9 20:40:50 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:40:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <20080209130213.C45AE6782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would >> be good to hear. What should it be, > > 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it > follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed? > > 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and > be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive > issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when > discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion > summarized if appropriate.) I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO. Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on the Secretariat. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Feb 9 21:13:27 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:13:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one closed list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around issues where the closed list has been utilized. Might as well just have one list. I don't mind the Chatham House anonymisation process, but I also think that many people might view transparency as meaning that MAG members individual points of view and comments on issues under discussion should be known as a default position, with Chatham House only being applied where there is a compelling reason to do so.. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would >> be good to hear. What should it be, > > 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it > follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed? > > 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and > be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive > issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when > discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion > summarized if appropriate.) I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO. Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on the Secretariat. -- 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008 11:54 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008 11:54 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sun Feb 10 04:50:40 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:50:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47AEC8F0.6010009@bertola.eu> Ian Peter ha scritto: > My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one closed > list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the > closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two > lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around > issues where the closed list has been utilized. My experience with the ALAC - which adopts that approach - is that, notwithstanding regular appeals by the Chairman and by some committed members, most group and staff members would continuously move discussions to the private list, even the ones that had started in public; in fact, several people, in full honesty, seem to think that group discussions should be private except when there is a need to go public. I'm not in the ALAC any more, but things seem to be actually getting worse over time; with an ICANN meeting starting right now and tons of issue discussions and preparatory work going on, in this initial stretch of February the public ALAC list had an average of one message a day, of which just two were by ALAC members. This is just an example, but there seems to be a constant pattern so that we all agree on the importance of transparency and we all complain when fellow civil society members do not send long and prompt reports and do not disclose each and every detail of what is happening behind the doors, but whenever we get appointed to one of these groups we start behaving secretly, or at least we fail to allocate sufficient energy to fulfill the same commitment to transparency that we require to others. Of course this is an average assessment, and there are some people who do put a lot of effort in communicating when they are appointed inside closed groups (honestly, I think I always tried hard), but practicing and preaching tend to often be two very separate worlds. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 10 09:44:23 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:44:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <45ed74050802100644o3d503e41w3ad10a43a5876af7@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian and All, A question about numbers and kinds of online lists, or that matter groups in general. There are comments (more or less or at a slant) about conversation-drift over to the smaller and often more-directly decisional (operational term here) body. So distributed approaches can (my paraphrase, so correct if you wish) to become centralized after all and there can be a morale dip in the orphaned group. Does it help - do you think - if all those in the more admin and decisional body are also in the more general list, sometimes called a member list? Continuing best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 2/9/08, Ian Peter wrote: > > My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one > closed > list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the > closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two > lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around > issues where the closed list has been utilized. > > Might as well just have one list. I don't mind the Chatham House > anonymisation process, but I also think that many people might view > transparency as meaning that MAG members individual points of view and > comments on issues under discussion should be known as a default position, > with Chatham House only being applied where there is a compelling reason > to > do so.. > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > >> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would > >> be good to hear. What should it be, > > > > 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it > > follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed? > > > > 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and > > be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive > > issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when > > discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion > > summarized if appropriate.) > > I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an > alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO. > Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on > the Secretariat. > > -- > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: > 09/02/2008 > 11:54 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: > 09/02/2008 > 11:54 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Feb 10 09:58:26 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:58:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Africa's Portal To The Internet Message-ID: Africa's Portal To The Internet by Nicole Ferraro, with Raymond Mcconville LightReading.com InformationWeek.com Feb. 2, 2008 Art. Ref: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206100708 Print: http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=206100708 - Source Ref.: InternetEvolution.com The Internet & the Developing World http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698 Sidebar 1: Lessons From India http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=9 Sidebar 2: The Internet, African Style http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=10 Sidebar 3: Which Charities? http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=11 Graph http://img.lightreading.com/internetevolution/2008/01/143698/2416.jpg -- Can cell phones and other inexpensive wireless devices close the digital divide in the world's poorest countries? At first glance, the idea that the Internet could have a major impact in the poorest parts of the developing world--Africa in particular--seems unlikely. Few people in those poor, rural areas have access to PCs or even electricity, for that matter. The Internet infrastructure is limited to major urban areas in most countries, and broadband services are scarce and quite expensive where they do exist. However, the picture is changing fast. The key is to look at the rollout of mobile telephone infrastructure, which is already widespread and growing rapidly in developing countries. "For the developing world, the Internet experience is going to be a wireless experience," says Susan Schorr, the head of the International Telecommunication Union's Regulatory and Market Environment Division. Sixty-one percent of the world's 2.7 billion mobile phone users are in developing countries, compared with 10% of the world's 1 billion Internet users, Schorr says. Online communities and markets are emerging in Africa, which accounts for more than half of the world's poorest countries, with people using low-cost cell phones rather than PCs for connectivity. They're providing vital data and information to community-based workers, connecting farmers with trading networks for their crops and commodities, and more broadly, providing access to political and social information that's changing people's lives. ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE Africa has only 3.5% of the world's Internet users, according to Internet World Stats. The picture varies across the continent, with South Africa and northern African countries having the highest percentage of their populations online, but the vast majority of Africans, especially those who live outside urban areas, have little or no access (see chart, below). Even in cities, Internet access can be quite slow; it's often dial-up, with internal country traffic as well as traffic between African countries frequently routed through Europe or other non-African countries. The International Telecommunications Union's latest statistics pegged mobile cellular use in Africa in 2006 at 7.2% of users worldwide, but cell phone use on the continent has been growing at more than twice the rate of the rest of the world. And the statistics don't tell the full story, since in countries where accessing a phone previously meant traveling long distances to the nearest landline, cell phones provide a distinct advantage. A 2005 survey by Vodafone found that 97% of 223 Tanzanians polled had access to mobile phones, while only 28% had access to landlines. Key to making cell phones the portal to the Internet is making them affordable. India is the leader there, with a cell-phone-subscribing population of 226 million--about 19% of its total population--and as many as 7 million people a month signing on as new subscribers, says Sridhar Pai, CEO of Tonse Telecom, an Indian telecom advisory firm. As cell phone use has grown, costs have been driven down to affordable levels for people with low incomes. Carriers have unbundled services from equipment, letting them charge less for service because they're not subsidizing handset costs. About 85% of all Indian cell phone contacts are prepaid, making it easier for customers to pay for service and providing more cash up front to operators. In addition, as the handset market has gotten more competitive, LG, Motorola, Nokia, and other companies have begun manufacturing them in India, putting downward pressure on prices, Pai says. In Africa, shared cell phone services are taking off. The Grameen Foundation has brought the Village Phone model, originally developed in Bangladesh, to Uganda and Rwanda. People wanting to become standalone mobile phone operators can take out microloans, letting them buy a Village Phone kit that includes a cell phone, a rooftop antenna that picks up cellular signals from 25 kilometers away, and a car battery or solar panel for recharging. They set up shop in their homes, selling phone calls to other villagers. There are at least 13,000 of these businesses in Uganda, according to the BBC, and their proprietors earn an average of $23 per month--a good living by Ugandan standards. Village Phone doesn't provide Internet access. Grameen and cellular service provider MTN Uganda have launched a study to assess what additional services operators might offer, including Internet access. ALTERNATE ROUTES ONLINE Without easy, cheap online access, economic development efforts have to find alternative ways to get online information to and from people, often using the much more ubiquitous and reliable cell phone network. For example, Kiva.org, a Web site that facilitates microlending to small businesses by connecting potential lenders with borrowers, needed a way around constant power failures in some countries. "Lots of times, we'll hear: 'Oh we don't have electricity now,'" says Kiva public relations director Fiona Ramsey. Kiva solved the problem by letting its partners update their Web entries from camera phones. "Power goes out in East Africa all the time, but cell phones never go down," Ramsey says. (For more on microlending and the Internet, see "Lending And Philanthropy In The Internet Age".) Telemedicine is a frequently cited example of how the Internet could transform conditions in developing countries. But the lack of Internet access and other issues are holding it back. The cost of conventional telemedicine technology is beyond the means of governments that spend less than $10 per capita annually on health care. Plus, the advice provided by remote experts via telemedicine projects, critics say, is often impractical in Africa. "Giving advice without a thorough understanding of local conditions and weak health infrastructure can be dangerous," says Philippa Saunders, a consultant specializing in health and pharmaceutical services in Africa. "African doctors often have limited equipment and few supplies of health commodities such as essential medicines." In addition, rural medical workers may not be literate. "It's impractical to supply Internet facilities to traditional birth attendants who can't read or write," says Maria Musoke, an information specialist who worked on technology trials in a Ugandan health project. Radios and walkie-talkies, on the other hand, "worked wonders," she says. However, some basic medical information dissemination projects are succeeding using the cellular network. AED-Satellife Center for Health Information and Technology since 2003 has distributed 600 PDAs to health workers in remote areas of Uganda and has launched a second program in Mozambique. Clinicians use the PDAs to collect public health data. They then upload that data and e-mails they need to send to a caching server at a rural health facility. The caching server sends the data and messages over the cell network to a server in Kampala, Uganda's capital, which routes them to the correct recipients and sends back messages, data, and other information clinicians need. The system is improving the accuracy and speed with which public health data is collected, says Andrew Sideman, AED-Satellife's director of development. It also has "sparked great interest in using the information dissemination aspect of the system to support continuing medical education for clinicians who practice great distances from the nearest medical school," Sideman says. The cellular network is enabling business ventures, too. The DrumNet project is encouraging Kenyan farmers to grow crops for export by providing loans and marketing information. Sponsored by the International Development Research Centre, a Canadian group that supports research into how science and technology can help developing countries solve social, economic, and environmental problems, and Pride Africa, which aims to create a sustainable financial and information network in Africa, DrumNet's initial goal was to provide a Web-based portal. That approach proved to be slow, unreliable, and expensive. A second phase is under way, using a GSM-enabled system that will provide interactive links between producers, exporters, extension workers, rural banks, and DrumNet itself. In another cellular-based project, Web site Tradenet .biz in Ghana, lets people in several West African countries trade a variety of agricultural products. Traders use SMS messaging to communicate. CHANGE MECHANISM The Internet also is emerging as a promising mechanism for social and political change in developing countries by bypassing government control of the media, providing people with alternative information sources, and letting them communicate with the rest of the world about conditions in their countries. Video and blogs detailing the Myanmar government's harsh response to protests last fall were a prime example of the impact Internet access can have. More recently, information on unrest and violence following elections in Kenya continued to be disseminated via the Internet even after the government imposed a media blackout. Kenyans, unable to reach Internet cafes, were able to stay connected with each other and the rest of the world using SMS messaging available on the Mashada Web site, which caters to African online communities. "Situations like this are where technology can really shine," says Erik Hersman, writing on Mashada's blog forum. "The government can squash traditional media, but not technology that it barely knows exists." Cell phones and other inexpensive wireless devices are expected to be most of Africa's lifeline to the Internet. PC access may also escalate as One Laptop Per Child and similar efforts get off the ground. It's early days for these efforts, which aim to boost education in developing countries by the mass production of low-cost laptops. OLPC recently released a $200 laptop to a mixed reception, largely because of software stability problems. Other vendors are planning low-priced children's laptops. India's government has gone as far as rejecting an offer of millions of OLPC appliances in favor of its own approach, which aims to deliver laptops costing a mere $10 apiece. Researchers in Bangalore say they've already designed a laptop that could be produced in small quantities for $47 each. It's unclear how inexpensive laptops will affect online access in the poorest areas of the world. But what is clear is that cell phones and other wireless devices will continue to get more people connected to the Internet or at least give them access to a wealth of information and communications capabilities that previously were out of reach. -- Links within Article: Lending And Philanthropy In The Internet Age http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206100709 Kiwanja http://www.kiwanja.net/ Africa's Top 10 Internet-Using Countries http://i.cmpnet.com/informationweek/1171/171IE-chart.gif Grassroots Business Initiative http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/gbo.nsf/ *NOTE The Source article has serveral Sidebar's, of which are incorpated in to the main article. Source Ref.: InternetEvolution.com The Internet & the Developing World http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698 Sidebar 1: Lessons From India http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=9 Sidebar 2: The Internet, African Style http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=10 Sidebar 3: Which Charities? http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=143698&page_number=11 Graph http://img.lightreading.com/internetevolution/2008/01/143698/2416.jpg --- -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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Feb 10 12:56:47 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:56:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <47AEC8F0.6010009@bertola.eu> References: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47AEC8F0.6010009@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Thanks for these comments. I agree a risk of two lists is people may default to the closed. And the ALAC lists are an example. Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some form). If the closed list were used to excess then it should be obvious. Personally I'd much prefer a closed list for some discussions. Adam At 10:50 AM +0100 2/10/08, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Ian Peter ha scritto: >>My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one closed >>list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the >>closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two >>lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around >>issues where the closed list has been utilized. > >My experience with the ALAC - which adopts that approach - is that, >notwithstanding regular appeals by the Chairman and by some >committed members, most group and staff members would continuously >move discussions to the private list, even the ones that had started >in public; in fact, several people, in full honesty, seem to think >that group discussions should be private except when there is a need >to go public. I'm not in the ALAC any more, but things seem to be >actually getting worse over time; with an ICANN meeting starting >right now and tons of issue discussions and preparatory work going >on, in this initial stretch of February the public ALAC list had an >average of one message a day, of which just two were by ALAC members. > >This is just an example, but there seems to be a constant pattern so >that we all agree on the importance of transparency and we all >complain when fellow civil society members do not send long and >prompt reports and do not disclose each and every detail of what is >happening behind the doors, but whenever we get appointed to one of >these groups we start behaving secretly, or at least we fail to >allocate sufficient energy to fulfill the same commitment to >transparency that we require to others. > >Of course this is an average assessment, and there are some people >who do put a lot of effort in communicating when they are appointed >inside closed groups (honestly, I think I always tried hard), but >practicing and preaching tend to often be two very separate worlds. >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 10 15:21:24 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:21:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <45ed74050802100644o3d503e41w3ad10a43a5876af7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <05df01c86c22$91ea7a10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Linda suggested – Does it help - do you think - if all those in the more admin and decisional body are also in the more general list, sometimes called a member list? Personally, I don’t think that matters. Given a choice of two places to write to the same group of stakeholders, and knowing that in the second place the public ire is less likely to be raised on a contentious matter, most of us will choose the more private list. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just the way things are for almost all of us. Adam responded Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some form). If the closed list were used to excess then it should be obvious. In my opinion the good thing that has happened is that a degree of commitment to openness has been adopted by the MAG. That’s the good news, and maintaining the commitment to that is what’s important. I don’t think any particular procedure will remove the need for members committed to openness (like Adam) to continue to ensure that summaries are posted from time to time. We have a good step forward with the latest offerings! On 2/9/08, Ian Peter wrote: My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one closed list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around issues where the closed list has been utilized. Might as well just have one list. I don't mind the Chatham House anonymisation process, but I also think that many people might view transparency as meaning that MAG members individual points of view and comments on issues under discussion should be known as a default position, with Chatham House only being applied where there is a compelling reason to do so.. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 HYPERLINK "http://www.ianpeter.com"www.ianpeter.com HYPERLINK "http://www.internetmark2.org"www.internetmark2.org HYPERLINK "http://www.nethistory.info"www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au"Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41 To: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would >> be good to hear. What should it be, > > 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it > follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed? > > 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and > be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive > issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when > discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion > summarized if appropriate.) I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO. Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on the Secretariat. -- 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: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org"governance-unsubscribe at lists.c psr.org For all list information and functions, see: HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/inf o/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008 11:54 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008 11:54 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org"governance-unsubscribe at lists.c psr.org For all list information and functions, see: HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/inf o/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008 11:54 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1270 - Release Date: 10/02/2008 12:21 -------------- 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 Mon Feb 11 00:53:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:23:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi all I have prepared a rough first draft for a caucus consensus statement on renewal of MAG issue. The draft will take in positions as discussed in the coming days. Please offer your comments. It is a bit long, and I think we will be able to chisel it down. But lets discuss the main substantive issues involved here. I am unable to comment on renewal of MAG without touching the substantive aspects of its role and mandate, and have therefore tried to frame some issues in that area. I have put in some stuff about the government co-chair. I think we shd put across our opinion on this issue even if there may be little chance of 'correction' at the stage. And yes, I do expect some discussion here on the matter of representation of the technical community. Lets get on with it. It is a matter that is important to clarify and have a collective view on. I will post some issues for a possible separate statement of what worked/ not worked at Rio and suggestions for New Delhi, separately, a little later today. You may also like to see earlier emails in this thread (search by subject), and the postings on the online forum on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0 where there are postings by Jeremy, IT for Change, a group of technical community members, and Afonso. Parminder PS: the text below is rough ,and will be suitable decorated with all the necessary pleasantries before presentation. At the end of this week, likely on Sunday, depending on the how the discussions go, we will put up a final text for seeking rough consensus. It will be open for 48 hours, and the co-coordinators will make the judgment if a rough consensus can be called. This judgment will be open to be appealed against with the appeals committee. (starts) We appreciate the transparency measures.... (here we can mention our appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG', instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this body. - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of them should be rotated every year. - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, civil society, and business sector. - On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection. - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the present lopsidedness of the MAG. - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further explore the implications of this criterion. - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for the 2009 meeting onwards. With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of formalization of these by the MAG. IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national levels. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. (Closing thank you stuff .) (ends) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:17 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > On 23/01/2008, at 7:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > (1) A main issue is about stakeholder quotas. Should it be > > fixed, should there be a minimum number, or should there be no such > > guideline at all and it be left to the judgment of the ultimate > > authority for constitution of MAG to come out with an appropriate > > composition representing the full diversity of stakeholders. > > (2) Then there is the issue whether 'technical community' (which > > also needs some kind of definition) should be considered a separate > > stakeholder group or not. > > These two questions go together, and as far as I am concerned there > should not be a division between the two sub-groups, and there should > be a fixed quota for each of the other three groups.[0] > > A few reasons why there should not be a new stakeholder group for the > technical community are that: > > * The Tunis Agenda (although pretty confused on the whole question) > doesn't > recognise it as a separate group, but as a segment of the other > groups; > > * If the technical community is a distinct stakeholder group, then the > academic community will argue that it should be also, and if them > then why > not also the press, and if the press then why not also... > > but most importantly: > > * One of the biggest problems with the whole process has been the > distrust > between the technical community and the rest of civil society. The > technical community thinks that civil society is just a bunch of > whinging > career activists who have no understanding of the Internet's > culture and > history. Civil society thinks that the technical community is an > insular > and hubristic club of technocrats in the pocket of the private > sector. > In my view, if we cannot break down these divisions within broader > civil > society then we have not much chance of tackling the even deeper > gulfs > between civil society and the UN and governments. > > > (3) How do we see the balance of skills versus representative- > > ness as criteria for composition of MAG. What other criteria and > > guidelines are relevant in selecting members. > > This asks the wrong question. Consider ourselves as the founding > fathers of a new nation here. The nation, if it is democratic, does > not ask, what are the qualities we most want in our government? > Rather it asks, how do we most transparently allow our citizens to > select their own government, by whatever criteria *they* see fit? > > Of course, a democracy protects the rights of its minorities through > mechanisms such as human rights and equal opportunity. So there is > merit in allowing criteria of gender equity and regional balance to be > institutionalised in whatever process for MAG selection is adopted. > But that is as far as it should go. > > Since we do not have a demos for civil society to elect the members of > the MAG, the alternative as I have suggested is to form an open, > voluntary, randomly-selected nominating committee to do so, not unlike > the IGC's own. We then have to work on outreach to ensure that this > NomCom is as diverse as possible. > > > (4) What percentage of MAG members should rotate annually? > > I would have suggested half, but I'm not going to argue against those > who are pushing for one third. > > > (5) How members from each stakeholder group should be chosen? > > Should it be a strictly a stakeholder group controlled process, > > should stakeholder groups give nominations and the UN SG mostly go > > by it other than for clearly stated reasons like of geo/ gender > > balance, or it should largely be a UN SG controlled process whereby > > a good consideration is given to stakeholder nominations. > > It is a fallacy to put forward that UN SG or his delegates are neutral > parties who bring none of their own values to this process. In fact, > from the get-go, Nitin and Markus have been partisan to the interests > of governments, have pushed to ensure that the IGF remains closely > controlled by WSIS insiders, have consistently talked down the scope > of its mandate, and through inaction have limited the scope for > participation in the IGF by ordinary Internet users. (But this is not > personal; of *course* they will do that. They work for the United > Nations.) > > The selection of stakeholder representatives *must* be reserved to the > stakeholder groups themselves, subject only to basic universal > criteria of social equity. > > > Then there are more structural issues like, > > > > (1) what is the nature and authority/ decision making power of > > the MAG > > Its authority is going to be very closely tied to its legitimacy. So > although, of course, this question needs to be addressed, let's wait > until after it has been made more representative and accountable > before doing so. (That's one reason why I and others have preferred > to talk about a decision-making MAG in different terms, as a multi- > stakeholder bureau rather than an "advisory group".) > > > (2) What kind of decision making processes should be put in > > place to make MAG effective (we noticed the paralysis it suffered on > > perhaps the only, and very minor, issue that it has ever tried to > > take a decision on - selection of speakers for the plenaries. > > Consensus (but expertly facilitated using a consensus workshop process > or similar, to help ensure that the more powerful stakeholder > representatives do not abuse their power to silence other voices), > with a fall-back to voting. > > > (3) The very important issue of what should be done to ensure > > transparency and accountability of the MAG. > > I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but open the mailing > list. If governments are going to insist on Chatham Rule, then > someone (hell, I'll volunteer to do it) can easily write a script to > strip out all identifying headers and sigs from the messages before > they are publicly archived. > > > There are some other minor issue like the role and selection of the > > Chair and the relevance and role of a co-chair. > > The co-chairs should rotate between two of the stakeholder groups > every year. One of them should be from the host country secretariat. > > [0] This should really be the other four groups, except that > intergovernmental > organisations have only been observers so far and I am not > proposing that that > should change. > > -- > 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 -------------- 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 at Malcolm.id.au Mon Feb 11 03:05:28 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:05:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 11/02/2008, at 2:53 PM, Parminder wrote: > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to > make. > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name > ‘MAG’, instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a > lot in a name, and the multistakeholder part is the most important > characteristic of this body. On the other hand the multi-stakeholder composition of the group goes without saying. I'm more concerned about the word "Advisory". I don't mind leaving this unchanged if other people feel more strongly about it than I do, but I wouldn't put it first. > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one > third of them should be rotated every year. > > - Its membership should be divided equally between > governments, civil society, and business sector. Fine and fine. > - On the issue of representation of technical community it > is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as > per political representation based on interests of, or > representation of different interests through, these three sectors. > Technical community’s presence on the other hand is based on the > requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different > nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs > of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of > the technical community. The expertise provided by this community > should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and > the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of > final selection. Very good. > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments > in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this > should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this > purpose the selection process will have to not just go by getting a > new member from the same sector as the one who is retiring, which > will only replicate the present lopsidedness of the MAG. > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder > entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the > whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the > process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and > business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting > authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise > of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. > Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups > should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be > explained. Fine and fine. > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of > the technical community that “AG members should be chosen on the > basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is > different than "represent")”. We very much agree with this, and will > like to further explore the implications of this criterion. Let's not express our desire to explore it, which is irrelevant unless we already have explored it and have some other insights to contribute. Also, I do not want to deprecate the use of the term "representative" in a broader context than that of representative democracy. It is well understood that representativeness also extends to the ability to understand and speak for specific interests in fora where those interests are being challenged. It need not mean "one- vote, one value". > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need > to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, > and, where applicable, special interest groups. > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate > diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors > as well. Fine and fine. > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is > nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate > a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of > various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, > we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does the > UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG’s interface > with the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG’s > principal role/ responsibility) and the host country chair of > managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an > substantive role for the host country chair seen together with the > fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will > in any case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is > also to note that a constant government chair is an inappropriate > arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to move over to this > suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the > Indian government representative has already taken over as a co- > chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement > for the 2009 meeting onwards. Personally I would suggest that both co-chairs, rather than just the host country chair, should rotate between the stakeholder groups. > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a > greater clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does > MAG have any substantive role at all apart from the responsibility > of arranging the annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, > would it not be an appropriate role for it to discuss how well is > the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does not examine > this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the > secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of > working groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG > about improving its decision making processes, or generally, its > processes for delivering substantive outputs. It may, rather should, > base such outputs on open consultation for process related issues, > and on the IGF itself for substantive matters, but there needs to be > an adequate process of formalization of these by the MAG. Good! > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science > and Technology for Development. Does it? From where does this obligation arise? > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility > for inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and > regional level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some > places? Will IGF like to directly encourage such entities, which are > strongly multi-stakeholder, modeling themselves on the IGF, which > will also be in accordance to relevant parts of Tunis Agenda for > WSIS follow up activity at regional and national levels. To me, this reads as though we are commending the regional IGFs for being strongly multi-stakeholder and modelling themselves on the IGF, but I'm not sure they are or do. The UK "IGF", for example, isn't really anything of the sort. It's nothing but a two-hour seminar (see http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2008/01/23/uks-internet-governance-forum-civil-society-needs-to-get-on-board/) . Can we re-word this to change "which are strongly multi- stakeholder" to "which should be strongly multi-stakeholder", etc? > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, > is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, > and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that > a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some > positive results from that meeting. > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of > civil society from developing and least developed countries to > ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. Fine and fine. Thanks Parminder. -- 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 iza at anr.org Mon Feb 11 03:34:37 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:34:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU Symposia on ICTs and Climate Change, Apr 17-18, Kyoto & London, UK, 17-18 June 2008 Message-ID: Some of you may be interested in the following Symposia to be held in Kyoto, Japan in April, followed by another one in London in June. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/climatechange/index.html I plan to go to Kyoto conference (just to observe and learn) If anyone is also going to particiapte from Civil Society, please let me know? izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 11 08:00:55 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:00:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: References: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47AEC8F0.6010009@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47B04707.6010300@rits.org.br> We seem to be refining the issue (which is good) to a point in which we will need regular, efficient moderation (which is uncertain). If we can have good moderation on a regular basis (which is not the case in most lists), Adam's proposal seems OK. Also, the open list needs moderation as well -- not only to make sure spammers do not easily get access. frt rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks for these comments. > > I agree a risk of two lists is people may default to the closed. And > the ALAC lists are an example. > > Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the > closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about this > on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion going on, > and at some point it would be summarized back (in some form). If the > closed list were used to excess then it should be obvious. > > Personally I'd much prefer a closed list for some discussions. > > Adam > > > > At 10:50 AM +0100 2/10/08, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Ian Peter ha scritto: >>> My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one >>> closed >>> list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the >>> closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two >>> lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around >>> issues where the closed list has been utilized. >> >> My experience with the ALAC - which adopts that approach - is that, >> notwithstanding regular appeals by the Chairman and by some committed >> members, most group and staff members would continuously move >> discussions to the private list, even the ones that had started in >> public; in fact, several people, in full honesty, seem to think that >> group discussions should be private except when there is a need to go >> public. I'm not in the ALAC any more, but things seem to be actually >> getting worse over time; with an ICANN meeting starting right now and >> tons of issue discussions and preparatory work going on, in this >> initial stretch of February the public ALAC list had an average of one >> message a day, of which just two were by ALAC members. >> >> This is just an example, but there seems to be a constant pattern so >> that we all agree on the importance of transparency and we all >> complain when fellow civil society members do not send long and prompt >> reports and do not disclose each and every detail of what is happening >> behind the doors, but whenever we get appointed to one of these groups >> we start behaving secretly, or at least we fail to allocate sufficient >> energy to fulfill the same commitment to transparency that we require >> to others. >> >> Of course this is an average assessment, and there are some people who >> do put a lot of effort in communicating when they are appointed inside >> closed groups (honestly, I think I always tried hard), but practicing >> and preaching tend to often be two very separate worlds. >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 08:12:12 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:12:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842597C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842597C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Yes, but no one answered the question on sponsorship which bothers on inclusiveness aaron On 2/8/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > Sorry, the dates for the summer school are JULY 25 - July 31, 2008 > > w > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 11 08:18:05 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:18:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <47B04B0D.5050505@rits.org.br> Quite a relevant question, Aaron. I wonder if the promoters of the school are thinking about this? How could we help in looking for alternatives regarding this sponsorship? Also, any thoughts on extending the course to non-English speakers (I assume the course is not in German)? Of course, these are all suggestions, no demerit to the excellent initiative. --c.a. Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Many thanks Wolfgang for the info. > But one question: is there no sponsorship for candidates from LDCs. The > content of the program makes the class a must for candidates from the South > to participate. How do we get about this inclusiveness without > sponsorship? > Aaron > > > On 2/8/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> Please distribute it as wideley as possible >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> >> >> Call for Application >> >> >> >> >> >> 2nd Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) >> >> >> >> Meissen, July 25 - August, 31, 2007 >> >> >> >> >> >> < >> http://www.dotasia.org/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet, with more than 1.2 billion users worldwide, is the most >> important infrastructure of the information age. The Internet influences >> policies, economics and cultures on the global as well as on the local >> level. Internet related issues like security and stability, freedom of >> expression, privacy, eCommerce, new market opportunities, protection of >> intellectual property, fight against cybercrime, development, digital divide >> and others getting higher and higher priorities on the national and >> international political agenda. To reach the UN Millenium Development Goals >> (MDG) until 2015 the Internet is a crucial tool. For some experts Internet >> Governance will become as important as it is climate change today. >> >> >> >> Do you want to understand, how and by whom the Internet is governed and >> what the issues are which have made Internet Governance as one of the new >> global conflicts of the diplomacy of the 21st century? Do you want to know >> what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet >> Governance are and what is behind ICANN, RIRs, ccTLDs, gTLDs, iDNs, IPv6, >> IGF, WGIG and WSIS ? Do want to get more detailed information on how >> technical Internet Standards, Protocols and Codes, how the Domain Name >> System and the IP Address Space or the Domain Name market is evolving? Than >> you should apply for the "2008 Summer School on Internet Governance" (SSIG). >> >> >> >> The 2008 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 50 >> hours academic programme both for graduate students and young academics as >> well as for junior professionals from private sector, government and civil >> society. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures >> with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well >> known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in >> policy. It offers also opportunities for interactive communication with >> faculty members and among the fellows themselves by the daily evening >> programme of students presentations. >> >> >> >> Members of the 2008 Faculty include, inter alia >> >> Prof. Olga Cavalli, University of Buenos Aires >> >> Bertrand de la Chapelle, Envoy of the Information Society, French Foreign >> Ministry >> >> Avria Doria, Lulea Technology University, Chair of ICANNs GNSO Council >> >> Dr. William Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development >> Studies, Geneva >> >> Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias Ltd., Dublin >> >> Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris >> >> Markus Kummer, Executive Secretary of the Internet Governance Forum, (TBC) >> >> Prof. Milton Mueller, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, >> N.Y. >> >> Michael Niebel, European Commission, Member of ICANNs GAC, Brussels >> >> Prof. Jonathan Zittrain, Oxford Internet Institute (TBC) >> >> The Faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of >> Aarhus >> >> >> >> The 2008 Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) takes place in the >> St. Afra Monastery of the "Evangelische Akademie Meissen" in Germany, a >> historic place, where the father of the German enlightenment, Gotthold >> Ephraim Lessing, went to school. Meissen is a 1000 years old small city, >> famous for its "Meissen China", its very dry white wine and its old >> fortress, gothic churches and historic wine cellars from July 25 - July 31, >> 2008. It is a 30 minutes train ride from Dresden Airport, which connected by >> six daily shuttles to Munich and Frankfurt. >> >> >> >> The Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) is organized by the >> University of Aarhus and the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., a recognized "At >> Large Structure" (ALS) under ICANN Bylaws. It is sponsored by five TLD >> Registries, among them as Golden Sponsor DENIC (.de), as Silver Sponsor >> UNINETT (.no) and SIDN (.nl) and as Bronze Sponsor EURID (.eu) and DotAsia >> (.asia). Additionally UNESCO, Diplo Foundation, GIGANET, ENOM, Afilias, >> Dotberlin and others have partnered with the Summer School. >> >> >> >> The fee of 1.000.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT) includes, next to the full lecture >> programme >> >> * six nights accommodation in single guest rooms of the academy, >> * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee and snacks & wine at the daily >> night sessions, >> * one evening reception in the Meissen Procellanmanufactory, >> * a gala dinner in the historic wine-restaurant "Vinzenz Richter", >> * sightseeing events, >> * free WiFi access and >> * all teaching material. >> >> >> >> There is a special fee for students of 500.00 EUR (plus 19% VAT). There is >> also an opportunity to apply for support from the fellowship programme which >> is still under development. Students will get a certificate at the end of >> the Summer School. >> >> >> >> Detailed information, including the Draft Programme and the electronic >> "Application Form" as well as comments from 2007 Summer School Fellows can >> be found under www.euro-ssig.eu >> >> >> >> If you are interested in the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG), >> please send Applications until May 31, 2008 by using the electronic form on >> the website or contacting directly Sandra Hoferichter (info at hoferichter.eu), >> the Secretary of the Summer School or Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter ( >> wolfgang at imv.au.dk), chair of the 2008 Faculty. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Members of the 2008 Programme Committee >> >> >> >> Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus (Chair); Dr. William J. >> Drake, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies Geneva; >> Prof. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University; Avria Doria, Lulea Technology >> University; Bart Vastenburg, SIDN; Giovanni Seppia, EURID; Sabine Dolderer, >> DENIC; Philipp Grabensee, Afilias; Axel Plathe, UNESCO >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Feb 11 08:59:04 2008 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:59:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Internet Governance,JULY 25 - July 31, 2008 Message-ID: <458970.20744.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ones, Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, I feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. I should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. With kindest regards, Yours sincerely, =Prof. K. Nireshwalia 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 --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 11 09:32:58 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:32:58 -0800 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on In-Reply-To: <458970.20744.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <458970.20744.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> I am not in charge of awarding fellowship for this course, but I do handle fellowships for a couple of very large asiapac internet conferences. So, I feel bound to point out some things, and ask a few questions. 1. The course is on Internet Governance, not eGovernance 2. What relevance do, say, bio technology and food technology have wrt internet governance? 3. Certified ISO auditors earn a large enough income, even in India, that foreign travel should be reasonably affordable, if not exactly cheap. 4. So, what incentive or rationale, in your opinion, do the organizers have to sponsor you for the course rather than other candidates? and 5. How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded? suresh Keshava Nireshwalia [11/02/08 05:59 -0800]: >Dear Ones, >Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, I >feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, >Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is >indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. I >should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation >in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. >With kindest regards, >Yours sincerely, >=Prof. K. Nireshwalia > > > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 11 10:05:55 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:35:55 +0530 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> Very good. But again 1. I am not a professor 2. I nor others on the list are part of this course - you could have emailed Wolfgang directly 3. I still fail to see the relevance of this course in your field of work. eGovernance - for sure, there's an application. But internet governance is not egovernance, not even remotely like it. Different issues, completely unrelated. From: Keshava Nireshwalia [mailto:nkeshav42 at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet Dear Prof Suresh Ramasubramanian, Thanks to you for immediate response and also for correcting me. I retired as a Senior Scientist of the CFTRI, Mysore in 2001. I have beeen a Faculty in various subjects in various capacities. My address, does give an impression that I may be financially independent. However, the truth of the matter is apart from a single consultancy, I have been without a client for long now. I do look up to you to kindly give the relevance of this programme to me as a trainer and a teacher. I should thank you for this. Yours sincerely, =Prof K Nireshwalia Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I am not in charge of awarding fellowship for this course, but I do handle fellowships for a couple of very large asiapac internet conferences. So, I feel bound to point out some things, and ask a few questions. 1. The course is on Internet Governance, not eGovernance 2. What relevance do, say, bio technology and food technology have wrt internet governance? 3. Certified ISO auditors earn a large enough income, even in India, that foreign travel should be reasonably affordable, if not exactly cheap. 4. So, what incentive or rationale, in your opinion, do the organizers have to sponsor you for the course rather than other candidates? and 5. How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded? suresh Keshava Nireshwalia [11/02/08 05:59 -0800]: >Dear Ones, >Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, I >feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, >Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is >indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. I >should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation >in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. >With kindest regards, >Yours sincerely, >=Prof. K. Nireshwalia > > > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 _____ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- 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 nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 11 10:01:05 2008 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:01:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> Message-ID: <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Prof Suresh Ramasubramanian, Thanks to you for immediate response and also for correcting me. I retired as a Senior Scientist of the CFTRI, Mysore in 2001. I have beeen a Faculty in various subjects in various capacities. My address, does give an impression that I may be financially independent. However, the truth of the matter is apart from a single consultancy, I have been without a client for long now. I do look up to you to kindly give the relevance of this programme to me as a trainer and a teacher. I should thank you for this. Yours sincerely, =Prof K Nireshwalia Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I am not in charge of awarding fellowship for this course, but I do handle fellowships for a couple of very large asiapac internet conferences. So, I feel bound to point out some things, and ask a few questions. 1. The course is on Internet Governance, not eGovernance 2. What relevance do, say, bio technology and food technology have wrt internet governance? 3. Certified ISO auditors earn a large enough income, even in India, that foreign travel should be reasonably affordable, if not exactly cheap. 4. So, what incentive or rationale, in your opinion, do the organizers have to sponsor you for the course rather than other candidates? and 5. How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded? suresh Keshava Nireshwalia [11/02/08 05:59 -0800]: >Dear Ones, >Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, I >feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, >Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is >indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. I >should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation >in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. >With kindest regards, >Yours sincerely, >=Prof. K. Nireshwalia > > > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- 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 Mon Feb 11 10:33:29 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:33:29 +0100 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> Message-ID: Suresh wrote "How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded?" A strategic and apt question. But then, one must understand that it was due to the fact that no avenue was provided as to where to seek for sponsorship. In normal cases, hints are provided about scholarships and applicants called upon to channel their demands. DIPLO excels at this. The organizers of the excellent programme (perharps so bogged down by curricula activities involved in such a programme) took this aspect of sponsorship lightly. It is not late my very dear Suresh, just do provide the link where applications for scholarship could be fowarded. This can help in setting up a data bank of some resources for the programme... for future use, who knows. Aaron On 2/11/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Very good. But again > > > > 1. I am not a professor > > 2. I nor others on the list are part of this course – you could have > emailed Wolfgang directly > > 3. I still fail to see the relevance of this course in your field of > work. eGovernance – for sure, there's an application. But internet > governance is not egovernance, not even remotely like it. Different issues, > completely unrelated. > > > > *From:* Keshava Nireshwalia [mailto:nkeshav42 at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2008 8:31 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Subject:* Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School > on Governance of the Internet > > > > Dear Prof Suresh Ramasubramanian, > Thanks to you for immediate response and also for correcting me. > I retired as a Senior Scientist of the CFTRI, Mysore in 2001. I have beeen > a Faculty in various subjects in various capacities. My address, does give > an impression that I may be financially independent. However, the truth of > the matter is apart from a single consultancy, I have been without a client > for long now. > I do look up to you to kindly give the relevance of this programme to me > as a trainer and a teacher. I should thank you for this. > Yours sincerely, > =Prof K Nireshwalia > > *Suresh Ramasubramanian * wrote: > > I am not in charge of awarding fellowship for this course, but I do handle > fellowships for a couple of very large asiapac internet conferences. So, I > feel bound to point out some things, and ask a few questions. > > 1. The course is on Internet Governance, not eGovernance > > 2. What relevance do, say, bio technology and food technology have wrt > internet governance? > > 3. Certified ISO auditors earn a large enough income, even in India, that > foreign travel should be reasonably affordable, if not exactly cheap. > > 4. So, what incentive or rationale, in your opinion, do the organizers > have > to sponsor you for the course rather than other candidates? > > and > > 5. How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they > know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, > or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a > fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded? > > suresh > > Keshava Nireshwalia [11/02/08 05:59 -0800]: > >Dear Ones, > >Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, > I > >feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, > >Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is > >indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. > I > >should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation > >in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. > >With kindest regards, > >Yours sincerely, > >=Prof. K. Nireshwalia > > > > > > > >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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > *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* > > > ------------------------------ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 11 10:41:40 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:11:40 +0530 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> Message-ID: <00a401c86cc4$9a06dcf0$ce1496d0$@net> Aaron, DIPLO has a lot of funding available. So they can offer, and publicize, fellowships. A university in Germany - perhaps not as much? Perhaps the material can be posted online or some other e-learning measures can be worked out - they will work out cheaper, in both the short and the long run than flying people to Germany for a summer's worth of courses. AFNOG - held along with AFRINIC meetings - does have a fellowships program that may be relevant to Internet issues, and possibly to some internet governance issues though from a technical standpoint. I manage the fellowships for two similar conferences, but they are focused on the asiapac and on south asia respectively, so there's a regional requirement for fellows, besides the obvious background / qualification etc requirements Not to mention the "fun" developing country residents who don't have a previous history of foreign travel can have when trying to apply for a visa. Of course, there is a very high incidence of fraudulent applications at any visa post, so they're bound to do due diligence. And that can result in situations where a process that can take minutes to apply + maybe a couple of days to process for some people from developing countries can easily become a long drawn out process for others. suresh From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet Suresh wrote "How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded?" A strategic and apt question. But then, one must understand that it was due to the fact that no avenue was provided as to where to seek for sponsorship. In normal cases, hints are provided about scholarships and applicants called upon to channel their demands. DIPLO excels at this. The organizers of the excellent programme (perharps so bogged down by curricula activities involved in such a programme) took this aspect of sponsorship lightly. It is not late my very dear Suresh, just do provide the link where applications for scholarship could be fowarded. This can help in setting up a data bank of some resources for the programme... for future use, who knows. Aaron -------------- 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 at Malcolm.id.au Mon Feb 11 17:42:49 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:42:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <45ed74050802100644o3d503e41w3ad10a43a5876af7@mail.gmail.com> References: <051201c86b8a$8eb90c50$8b00a8c0@IAN> <45ed74050802100644o3d503e41w3ad10a43a5876af7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/02/2008, at 11:44 PM, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > Does it help - do you think - if all those in the more admin and > decisional body are also in the more general list, sometimes called > a member list? On a tangent to this, it is little-known that there is already a mailing list for all IGF stakeholders, which the Secretariat created at my request but which they have not promoted or even linked to, and which has therefore been basically unused. (See http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org.) The ideal case would be if, rather than necessarily creating a new list, all the Advisory Group members joined this list, and invited all the other stakeholders to do so, and started interacting with the rest of us as peers. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 11 21:00:04 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:04 -0200 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on In-Reply-To: <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> Message-ID: <47B0FDA4.8030409@rits.org.br> Why take the time bugging the retired professor? There are no fellowships anyway. The issue was raised in this list in the search for ideas on how to help the course promoters to find ways to fund people from developing countries. Maybe some of us could have some hints, maybe this could become decentralized, like the INET workshops which became regional etc etc. --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Very good. But again > > > > 1. I am not a professor > > 2. I nor others on the list are part of this course - you could have > emailed Wolfgang directly > > 3. I still fail to see the relevance of this course in your field of > work. eGovernance - for sure, there's an application. But internet > governance is not egovernance, not even remotely like it. Different issues, > completely unrelated. > > > > From: Keshava Nireshwalia [mailto:nkeshav42 at yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on > Governance of the Internet > > > > Dear Prof Suresh Ramasubramanian, > Thanks to you for immediate response and also for correcting me. > I retired as a Senior Scientist of the CFTRI, Mysore in 2001. I have beeen a > Faculty in various subjects in various capacities. My address, does give an > impression that I may be financially independent. However, the truth of the > matter is apart from a single consultancy, I have been without a client for > long now. > I do look up to you to kindly give the relevance of this programme to me as > a trainer and a teacher. I should thank you for this. > Yours sincerely, > =Prof K Nireshwalia > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I am not in charge of awarding fellowship for this course, but I do handle > fellowships for a couple of very large asiapac internet conferences. So, I > feel bound to point out some things, and ask a few questions. > > 1. The course is on Internet Governance, not eGovernance > > 2. What relevance do, say, bio technology and food technology have wrt > internet governance? > > 3. Certified ISO auditors earn a large enough income, even in India, that > foreign travel should be reasonably affordable, if not exactly cheap. > > 4. So, what incentive or rationale, in your opinion, do the organizers have > to sponsor you for the course rather than other candidates? > > and > > 5. How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they > know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, > or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a > fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded? > > suresh > > Keshava Nireshwalia [11/02/08 05:59 -0800]: >> Dear Ones, >> Complements to you on organising a Summer Course on e-Governance, which, I >> feel is highly useful to the academia. As a Faculty of Biotechnology, >> Environmental Science, Food Technology and other related topics, it is >> indeed a great opportunity to learn about the impact on higher education. I >> should feel gratified to see support to me by sponsoring my participation >> in this workshop by refund of all expenditure. >> With kindest regards, >> Yours sincerely, >> =Prof. K. Nireshwalia >> >> >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > 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 > > > > _____ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo > your homepage. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 11 21:09:58 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:09:58 -0800 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on In-Reply-To: <47B0FDA4.8030409@rits.org.br> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> <47B0FDA4.8030409@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080212020958.GA2545@hserus.net> Carlos Afonso [12/02/08 00:00 -0200]: > Why take the time bugging the retired professor? There are no fellowships > anyway. The issue was raised in this list in the search for ideas on how to > help the course promoters to find ways to fund people from developing > countries. Maybe some of us could have some hints, maybe this could become > decentralized, like the INET workshops which became regional etc etc. Let's see. You either find civ soc offering to take the course material, perhaps translate it, and teach it locally. Or you find ways to put most of the course material online, administer tests online and occasionally multicast lectures. On the whole I prefer #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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 11 21:11:32 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:11:32 -0200 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on In-Reply-To: <20080212020958.GA2545@hserus.net> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> <47B0FDA4.8030409@rits.org.br> <20080212020958.GA2545@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47B10054.6070300@rits.org.br> Yes, could be. It is worth taking a look at how ISOC and partners carried out the regionalization of the INET courses. --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Carlos Afonso [12/02/08 00:00 -0200]: >> Why take the time bugging the retired professor? There are no >> fellowships anyway. The issue was raised in this list in the search >> for ideas on how to help the course promoters to find ways to fund >> people from developing countries. Maybe some of us could have some >> hints, maybe this could become decentralized, like the INET workshops >> which became regional etc etc. > > Let's see. You either find civ soc offering to take the course material, > perhaps translate it, and teach it locally. Or you find ways to put most of > the course material online, administer tests online and occasionally > multicast lectures. On the whole I prefer #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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 11 23:01:58 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:01:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE100@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for doing this, Parminder ________________________________ On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG', instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this body. Agree. Jeremy raises a good point about the "advisory" word but that probably raises an issue that is not ripe yet. - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of them should be rotated every year. I think one of the big problems with the MAG is its size, and that its size should be drastically reduced. I think 15 would be a better number. This would reinforce the status of people on it as accountable agents of a broader community, and greatly enhance their visibility - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, civil society, and business sector. Agree. - On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection. Right, one might also point out that most technical people are employed by business. Wording here could be improved. - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the present lopsidedness of the MAG. Agree - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further explore the implications of this criterion. Don't fall for that trick. Will explain later. - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for the 2009 meeting onwards. With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of formalization of these by the MAG. IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national levels. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. (Closing thank you stuff ...) (ends) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:17 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > On 23/01/2008, at 7:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > (1) A main issue is about stakeholder quotas. Should it be > > fixed, should there be a minimum number, or should there be no such > > guideline at all and it be left to the judgment of the ultimate > > authority for constitution of MAG to come out with an appropriate > > composition representing the full diversity of stakeholders. > > (2) Then there is the issue whether 'technical community' (which > > also needs some kind of definition) should be considered a separate > > stakeholder group or not. > > These two questions go together, and as far as I am concerned there > should not be a division between the two sub-groups, and there should > be a fixed quota for each of the other three groups.[0] > > A few reasons why there should not be a new stakeholder group for the > technical community are that: > > * The Tunis Agenda (although pretty confused on the whole question) > doesn't > recognise it as a separate group, but as a segment of the other > groups; > > * If the technical community is a distinct stakeholder group, then the > academic community will argue that it should be also, and if them > then why > not also the press, and if the press then why not also... > > but most importantly: > > * One of the biggest problems with the whole process has been the > distrust > between the technical community and the rest of civil society. The > technical community thinks that civil society is just a bunch of > whinging > career activists who have no understanding of the Internet's > culture and > history. Civil society thinks that the technical community is an > insular > and hubristic club of technocrats in the pocket of the private > sector. > In my view, if we cannot break down these divisions within broader > civil > society then we have not much chance of tackling the even deeper > gulfs > between civil society and the UN and governments. > > > (3) How do we see the balance of skills versus representative- > > ness as criteria for composition of MAG. What other criteria and > > guidelines are relevant in selecting members. > > This asks the wrong question. Consider ourselves as the founding > fathers of a new nation here. The nation, if it is democratic, does > not ask, what are the qualities we most want in our government? > Rather it asks, how do we most transparently allow our citizens to > select their own government, by whatever criteria *they* see fit? > > Of course, a democracy protects the rights of its minorities through > mechanisms such as human rights and equal opportunity. So there is > merit in allowing criteria of gender equity and regional balance to be > institutionalised in whatever process for MAG selection is adopted. > But that is as far as it should go. > > Since we do not have a demos for civil society to elect the members of > the MAG, the alternative as I have suggested is to form an open, > voluntary, randomly-selected nominating committee to do so, not unlike > the IGC's own. We then have to work on outreach to ensure that this > NomCom is as diverse as possible. > > > (4) What percentage of MAG members should rotate annually? > > I would have suggested half, but I'm not going to argue against those > who are pushing for one third. > > > (5) How members from each stakeholder group should be chosen? > > Should it be a strictly a stakeholder group controlled process, > > should stakeholder groups give nominations and the UN SG mostly go > > by it other than for clearly stated reasons like of geo/ gender > > balance, or it should largely be a UN SG controlled process whereby > > a good consideration is given to stakeholder nominations. > > It is a fallacy to put forward that UN SG or his delegates are neutral > parties who bring none of their own values to this process. In fact, > from the get-go, Nitin and Markus have been partisan to the interests > of governments, have pushed to ensure that the IGF remains closely > controlled by WSIS insiders, have consistently talked down the scope > of its mandate, and through inaction have limited the scope for > participation in the IGF by ordinary Internet users. (But this is not > personal; of *course* they will do that. They work for the United > Nations.) > > The selection of stakeholder representatives *must* be reserved to the > stakeholder groups themselves, subject only to basic universal > criteria of social equity. > > > Then there are more structural issues like, > > > > (1) what is the nature and authority/ decision making power of > > the MAG > > Its authority is going to be very closely tied to its legitimacy. So > although, of course, this question needs to be addressed, let's wait > until after it has been made more representative and accountable > before doing so. (That's one reason why I and others have preferred > to talk about a decision-making MAG in different terms, as a multi- > stakeholder bureau rather than an "advisory group".) > > > (2) What kind of decision making processes should be put in > > place to make MAG effective (we noticed the paralysis it suffered on > > perhaps the only, and very minor, issue that it has ever tried to > > take a decision on - selection of speakers for the plenaries. > > Consensus (but expertly facilitated using a consensus workshop process > or similar, to help ensure that the more powerful stakeholder > representatives do not abuse their power to silence other voices), > with a fall-back to voting. > > > (3) The very important issue of what should be done to ensure > > transparency and accountability of the MAG. > > I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but open the mailing > list. If governments are going to insist on Chatham Rule, then > someone (hell, I'll volunteer to do it) can easily write a script to > strip out all identifying headers and sigs from the messages before > they are publicly archived. > > > There are some other minor issue like the role and selection of the > > Chair and the relevance and role of a co-chair. > > The co-chairs should rotate between two of the stakeholder groups > every year. One of them should be from the host country secretariat. > > [0] This should really be the other four groups, except that > intergovernmental > organisations have only been observers so far and I am not > proposing that that > should change. > > -- > 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 -------------- 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 Mon Feb 11 23:52:57 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:52:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: hi, kudos for the draft. Comments inline: On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > We appreciate the transparency measures…….. (here we can mention our > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to > take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) fine > > > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG', > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this > body. > > ok > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of > them should be rotated every year. > I think it is an unwieldy number. I would prefer 20, but could stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be unlikely to move off 40 tho. > > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > civil society, and business sector. > > and the technical community > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > political representation based on interests of, or representation of > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at > the time of final selection. > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from our charter). Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical community folk). In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder group. as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either. > > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the > present lopsidedness of the MAG. > fine > > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of > judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and > normally be explained. no objection > > > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further > explore the implications of this criterion. > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-). On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I have written often and extensively on this list that those people participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their employers bottom line. All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. > > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > applicable, special interest groups. > > fine > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > ok > > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the > present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for > the 2009 meeting onwards. ok > > > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > ok > > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of > formalization of these by the MAG. > no objection > > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > ok > > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national > levels. > ok > > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results > from that meeting. > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful > participation in its open consultations. > Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation in the MAG itself? > > > (Closing thank you stuff …) > > > > (ends) > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Feb 12 00:29:35 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:29:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <095201c86d38$49037a60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to include people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. The dilemma here needs to be addressed carefully. We should remember that people like Francis Muguet and Louis Pouzin (the latter very worthy of a "technical community" tag) have set up a separate mailing list and have begun to caucus separately largely because they felt that this main list had been taken over by representatives of this unclearly named and identified group. What's clear is that it is not in our interests for civil society to be irreconcilably split on this. Equally, it is not good for civil society to be dominated by people whose interests are primarily to maintain a status quo or to protect the power base of existing bodies without necessarily giving due consideration to proposals for change. However, the worst possible outcome would be for the sometimes passionate debates between those who support and/or represent existing bodies, and those who see a need for change, to stop. I think the exchange of views here is important, and at times we may need to put forward CS positions which indicate that there are differing viewpoints in CS on some issues. In fact, the issue of "technical community" involvement may be one such case. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 12 February 2008 15:53 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG hi, kudos for the draft. Comments inline: On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > We appreciate the transparency measures .. (here we can mention our > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to > take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) fine > > > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG', > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this > body. > > ok > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of > them should be rotated every year. > I think it is an unwieldy number. I would prefer 20, but could stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be unlikely to move off 40 tho. > > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > civil society, and business sector. > > and the technical community > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > political representation based on interests of, or representation of > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at > the time of final selection. > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from our charter). Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical community folk). In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder group. as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either. > > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the > present lopsidedness of the MAG. > fine > > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of > judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and > normally be explained. no objection > > > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further > explore the implications of this criterion. > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-). On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I have written often and extensively on this list that those people participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their employers bottom line. All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. > > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > applicable, special interest groups. > > fine > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > ok > > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the > present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for > the 2009 meeting onwards. ok > > > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > ok > > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of > formalization of these by the MAG. > no objection > > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > ok > > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national > levels. > ok > > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results > from that meeting. > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful > participation in its open consultations. > Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation in the MAG itself? > > > (Closing thank you stuff ) > > > > (ends) > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Feb 12 00:41:54 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:11:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <007101c86d39$fc197770$f44c6650$@net> > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of > India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, > IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. ISOC New Delhi was all of 2 people - both of whom quit it (one of them moved to work as apnic staff) I think there was an attempt to start an "ISOC India" but it got shot down - and rightly so. And looks like another one or two person ISOC chapter recently started in the city I live in (Chennai / Madras). Well, in the same state at least .. the guy is based out of a smaller city about 6 hours drive from my city so not much chance my going to a meeting there - and he says he represents 4 states (with just two founding stakeholders - him and one of his friends). Never seen or heard of him, or his friend, in the Indian internet community in the last decade or so, but well, I cant claim to know everybody into that kind of thing in India. http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2005-April/000759.html > On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I > have written often and extensively on this list that those people > participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like > myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and Very true indeed. And it is this kind of facile claim that keeps marginalizing technical people in the larger "civil society" grouping, if indeed such a civil society exists, rather than individual civ soc organizations. > participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These > technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that > doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. Given a fairly widespread perception among some members of the technical community re what "regular" CS is sometimes - naïve / political / fundamentally unaware of technical issues / a combination of all three), I would imagine that these people - who would contribute a very meaningful stake - would shy away from CS activities. These two groups don’t speak the same language, and tend to regard sections of each other with thinly veiled contempt if at all. Finding a middle ground between these communities is rare. > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need > to > > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, With the added proviso that representation for representations sake should be subordinated, at least at this stage, to a determination of how meaningful a contribution can be made by the individuals (I wont even say "groups") represented. I support the rest of Parminder's draft. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Feb 12 00:49:49 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:19:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <095201c86d38$49037a60$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <095201c86d38$49037a60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <007801c86d3b$16b0e950$4412bbf0$@net> Ian Peter wrote: > people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. Under "independent technical community" I would include people like Veni, or McTim, or various others. Certainly not affiliated to any particular company or given a job profile, or a tenure, that includes "public policy" > "technical community" tag) have set up a separate mailing list and have > begun to caucus separately largely because they felt that this main > list had been taken over by representatives of this unclearly named and > identified group. Is "technical community" more, or less, unclearly defined than "civil society"? Just a little thought experiment there, if you will .. > be dominated by people whose interests are primarily to maintain a > status quo or to protect the power base of existing bodies without > necessarily giving due consideration to proposals for change. You have some proponents of uprooting the entire structure, growing a new one from scratch. And you have some proponents of internal reform in what is still largely multistakeholder. Even Milton does acknowledge NCUC and its potential, for all his calls of IGF taking over ICANN (soft!?!) oversight The IGF is one of those very rare places and events that bring together people from a very diverse community, and that is an advantage. A set agenda that revolves around ICANN politics and governance, though, is not what I would call ideal. Unless this is actually going to get renamed the "ICANN governance forum"? suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 12 00:55:16 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:55:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 7:52 AM +0300 2/12/08, McTim wrote: >hi, > >kudos for the draft. Comments inline: agree: Parminder, thanks. snip > >> >> >> - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, >> civil society, and business sector. >> >> > >and the technical community > I agree -- more below > > >> - On the issue of representation of technical community it is >> important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per >> political representation based on interests of, or representation of >> different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's >> presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary >> expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from >> the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as >> undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise >> provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the >> three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at >> the time of final selection. >> > >I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that >you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate >representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those >"slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say >that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > >1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) >1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) >1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) >1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) >1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) >1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) >1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > >This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS >"slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other >NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, >ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global >electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from >our charter). > >Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I >don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but >they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical >community folk). I don't want to get into an argument about where members of the technical community might drag members from (FWIW I think most are private sector oriented not civil society, being non profit isn't relevant, however not easy to pigeon hole), but for sure it will be from civil society and private sector in some measure. So we likely loose out. The advisory group isn't a creation of the Tunis Agenda and referring to the early paragraphs as strict rules for its design doesn't make sense. The MAG, it's design, came from contributions to the first series of consultations 2 years ago, the multistakeholder advisory group + chair and secretariat is the interpretation those consultations put on the instruction to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multistakeholder participation." My problem with the technical community isn't that they are represented, but there are too many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from private sector and civil society respectively. And I think people generally recognize a close alignment between the private sector and technical community (it is certainly apparent inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim mentions represented (ISOC is to all intent and purposes .ORG, why two standards community... though a personal preference would be a couple of RIRs...) With civil society increased by 3 or 4 and private sector by 2 or 3. About the overall number, I think it will be difficult to get below 40. And 40 is not ideal but workable. 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 Tue Feb 12 01:13:35 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:13:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE105@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Good points Adam. I agree that there is an over-representation of what is called "technical community" on the MAG. I also appreciate Ian Peter's more accurate characterization of what is often called "technical community" to "representatives of current internet administration bodies," and Ian's wise words about the need for continued "passionate debates between those who support and/or represent existing bodies, and those who see a need for change" A question: > -----Original Message----- > > About the overall number, I think it will be > difficult to get below 40. Difficult in what way? Difficult to whom? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 01:53:30 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:23:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080212065408.F3558E19E0@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that > you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate > representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those > "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say > that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > > 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) > 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) > 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) > 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) > 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) > 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) > 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > > This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS > "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other > NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, > ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from > our charter). McTim Thanks for responding. I will discuss the main issue of tech community representation first, and respond to others a little later. Your analysis of the possible practical consequences of a simple 3 way division of members for CS membership is quite logical. I quite understand that most of these IG institutions will need to be represented in the MAG for it to do any meaningful work. I am willing to consider a separate category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally divided among three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and other members response to this proposal. In this case one will know that each member clearly represents a particular institution (and, if it makes any sense, they collectively represent the interests of the extant IG establishment). These institutions surely have legitimate interests and the right to represent them. The problem is of mixing of these interests with those represented by CS. CS by definition represents non-institutional interests(non-gov, non-market, and if now we have add another category, non- existing IG bodies). That’s the meaning of CS. With technical community I understand a community of people with high degree of technical expertise. But this expertise can be used to further X company's interests of propertisizing as much of the global ICT infrastructure as possible, as much as for Y country's censorship and surveillance system. Association with these activities will not make them any less 'technical' or take away their membership of 'technical community', or will it. And there are those technical community members who spend a lot of time and resources to uphold public interest values, which makes them worthy civil society members/ leaders. But when I said every group should bring in adequate technical expertise in their nominations for MAG, I wasn’t looking for all the kinds of expertise represented in the above list you have given. Many of these have no technical expertise at all. In this list many of those passing off as 'technical community members' have had nothing to do with technology. Theresa Swineheart representing ICANN is a lawyer ( a law graduate at least) and so is the new ICANN chair (with a long background of representing the IPR constituency), and I am sure many others in the above list may not be technical persons. So, what really is the definition of this technical community - on what criteria do you exclude someone who may be an outstandingly capable technical expert leading a country's surveillance activity, and include lawyers in this category. We all recognize and greatly respect all the work, sacrifices etc done by great technical persons in making the Internet into what it is, and perhaps in keeping it so. These are the people who stood by public interest values and did not allow themselves to be supplanted to narrow insituional interests. And as I said they must rate as CS leaders. Our problem is that the 'term 'technical community' is deliberated employed in confusing ways to use the cover of legitimacy of the great work done by these persons for narrow sectional interests. And yes, often times, technical experts themselves feel the pangs of 'power' going out of their hands as Internet becomes something requiring great social and political attention, and contribute to this continued obfuscation of the meaning of the term 'technical community'. So, lets get our definitions right, and then we can argue about what to do with which group. In light of above, can you tell me what you mean by 'technical community'. If it means technical experts who want to work for upholding public interest values, they are simply civil society members, with special knowledge of the subject, and therefore deserving special attention from all of us. It is means any person who have a high degree of technical expertise, I am not willing to give someone working on entrenching an x company's monopoly on the Internet any special political representation, on account of his tech competency, on any public policy body. If the term means representatives of exiting IG institutions, yes, these can together be given 6-7 positions on the MAG. I am open to that. We will then know exactly what and whom do they represent. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:23 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > hi, > > kudos for the draft. Comments inline: > > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > We appreciate the transparency measures .. (here we can mention our > > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best > to > > take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) > > fine > > > > > > > > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > > > > > > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name > 'MAG', > > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a > name, > > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of > this > > body. > > > > > > ok > > > > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third > of > > them should be rotated every year. > > > > I think it is an unwieldy number. I would prefer 20, but could > stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be > unlikely to move off 40 tho. > > > > > > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > > civil society, and business sector. > > > > > > and the technical community > > > > > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > > political representation based on interests of, or representation of > > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear > from > > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all > the > > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance > at > > the time of final selection. > > > > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that > you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate > representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those > "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say > that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > > 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) > 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) > 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) > 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) > 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) > 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) > 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > > This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS > "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other > NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, > ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from > our charter). > > Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I > don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but > they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical > community folk). > > In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems > unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th > stakeholder group. > > as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as > being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus > here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either. > > > > > > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in > the > > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the > > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from > the > > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the > > present lopsidedness of the MAG. > > > > fine > > > > > > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, > or > > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for > > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of > > judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a > > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes > > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, > and > > normally be explained. > > no objection > > > > > > > > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of > how > > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further > > explore the implications of this criterion. > > > > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of > India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, > IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. > > Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-). > > On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I > have written often and extensively on this list that those people > participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like > myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and > well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This > is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in > the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in > domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their > employers bottom line. > > All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of > volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who > participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These > technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that > doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. > > > > > > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > > applicable, special interest groups. > > > > > > fine > > > > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > > > > ok > > > > > > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > stakeholder > > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by > the UN > > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of > logistics > > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the > > present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central > > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present > > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host > country > > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host > country > > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive > role > > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an > open > > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over- > represented > > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant > government > > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late > to > > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > over as > > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement > for > > the 2009 meeting onwards. > > ok > > > > > > > > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater > > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any > > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the > > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an > > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its > Tunis > > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do > it? > > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of > working > > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about > improving > > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for > delivering > > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for > > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of > > formalization of these by the MAG. > > > > no objection > > > > > > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this > report? > > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that > an > > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not > just > > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that > the > > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much > look > > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the > area > > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional > > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF > like > > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi- > stakeholder, > > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to > relevant > > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and > national > > levels. > > > > ok > > > > > > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is > one > > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > meeting > > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February > > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive > results > > from that meeting. > > > > > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful > > participation in its open consultations. > > > > Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation > in the MAG itself? > > > > > > > (Closing thank you stuff ) > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 12 01:56:16 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:56:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE105@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE105@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 1:13 AM -0500 2/12/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Good points Adam. I agree that there is an over-representation of what >is called "technical community" on the MAG. I also appreciate Ian >Peter's more accurate characterization of what is often called >"technical community" to "representatives of current internet >administration bodies," and Ian's wise words about the need for >continued "passionate debates between those who support and/or represent >existing bodies, and those who see a need for change" yes. >A question: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> About the overall number, I think it will be >> difficult to get below 40. > >Difficult in what way? Difficult to whom? I am guessing. But from the most recent extracts of the MAG list: "(From Writer C): > >It seems to me that the simplest part of the puzzle may be the >nomination of government members. There are established ways of >nominating representatives from UN regional groups and I assume these >can continue to be used with appropriate rotation. > Could anyone guess at the minimum number required to meet this requirement. Perhaps knowing this number and being able to build-out from there will give us an idea of the ideal size of the advisory group. I hope we can keep to around 40, less rather than more. Currently, seems about 21 members of the advisory group are employed by or represent a government department or agency, little under half to total of the group." I was the one asking the question (writer A). My question's not been answered so I can't answer you very well. But my guess is governments will come up with a similar number when they tot up what they "need" for the next MAG. A late addition to the original MAG membership in May 2006 was a govt representative of a regional grouping who'd been overlooked, so I'm making a wild guess that each govt rep is there for a reason, representing some sub-group or interest. If right, the number of govt members will hover around 20, and a remaining 20 will be split between the rest. The current MAG is too large, certainly with advisory group members. But around 40 isn't too bad. If you see Markus around in Delhi ask him if he has any idea what the minimum number of govt reps might be. 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 12 01:20:13 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:20:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reforming the IGF's representational structure In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE105@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE105@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE106@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> By the way, mind if I change the header? "Reconstituted MAG" sounds like an especially horrific kind of artificial processed foodstuff, located somewhere between pasteurized process cheese food and partially hydrogenated soybean oil. > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Good points Adam. I agree that there is an over-representation of what > is called "technical community" on the MAG. I also appreciate Ian > Peter's more accurate characterization of what is often called > "technical community" to "representatives of current internet > administration bodies," and Ian's wise words about the need for > continued "passionate debates between those who support and/or represent > existing bodies, and those who see a need for change" > > A question: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > About the overall number, I think it will be > > difficult to get below 40. > > Difficult in what way? Difficult to whom? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 02:06:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:36:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reforming the IGF's representational structure In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9013EE106@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080212070724.230F9A6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton Can you suggest a more palatable header which still has MAG in it, bec in this thread we are discussing issues specifically related to renewal/ reconstitution/ reform of the MAG, which is one of the main agenda for the Feb consultation. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:50 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: [governance] Reforming the IGF's representational structure > > By the way, mind if I change the header? "Reconstituted MAG" sounds like > an especially horrific kind of artificial processed foodstuff, located > somewhere between pasteurized process cheese food and partially > hydrogenated soybean oil. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:14 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > Good points Adam. I agree that there is an over-representation of what > > is called "technical community" on the MAG. I also appreciate Ian > > Peter's more accurate characterization of what is often called > > "technical community" to "representatives of current internet > > administration bodies," and Ian's wise words about the need for > > continued "passionate debates between those who support and/or > represent > > existing bodies, and those who see a need for change" > > > > A question: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > About the overall number, I think it will be > > > difficult to get below 40. > > > > Difficult in what way? Difficult to whom? > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 02:15:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:45:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <095201c86d38$49037a60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080212071549.BB4F86781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical > community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer > in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current > internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to > include > people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. Very Much Agree, Ian. We would have a done the IG arena some very useful service if we questioned the term' tech community' in the manner you have suggested and clarify its meaning and usage. As indicated in my email, we should propose that the current IG bodies should be given a separate quota of around 6 because I do think they should be represented in the MAG. Only this confusion is best done away with. So we know that the tech community as selected for the MAG is a different category than the count of them that McTim made for this list. However, I don’t know what criteria he used in counting tech community members on this list. Can you please clarify, McTim. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical > community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer > in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current > internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to > include > people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. > > The dilemma here needs to be addressed carefully. We should remember that > people like Francis Muguet and Louis Pouzin (the latter very worthy of a > "technical community" tag) have set up a separate mailing list and have > begun to caucus separately largely because they felt that this main list > had > been taken over by representatives of this unclearly named and identified > group. > > What's clear is that it is not in our interests for civil society to be > irreconcilably split on this. Equally, it is not good for civil society to > be dominated by people whose interests are primarily to maintain a status > quo or to protect the power base of existing bodies without necessarily > giving due consideration to proposals for change. > > However, the worst possible outcome would be for the sometimes passionate > debates between those who support and/or represent existing bodies, and > those who see a need for change, to stop. I think the exchange of views > here > is important, and at times we may need to put forward CS positions which > indicate that there are differing viewpoints in CS on some issues. In > fact, > the issue of "technical community" involvement may be one such case. > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 12 February 2008 15:53 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > hi, > > kudos for the draft. Comments inline: > > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > We appreciate the transparency measures .. (here we can mention our > > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best > to > > take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) > > fine > > > > > > > > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > > > > > > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name > 'MAG', > > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a > name, > > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of > this > > body. > > > > > > ok > > > > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third > of > > them should be rotated every year. > > > > I think it is an unwieldy number. I would prefer 20, but could > stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be > unlikely to move off 40 tho. > > > > > > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > > civil society, and business sector. > > > > > > and the technical community > > > > > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > > political representation based on interests of, or representation of > > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear > from > > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all > the > > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance > at > > the time of final selection. > > > > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that > you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate > representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those > "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say > that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > > 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) > 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) > 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) > 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) > 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) > 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) > 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > > This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS > "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other > NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, > ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from > our charter). > > Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I > don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but > they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical > community folk). > > In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems > unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th > stakeholder group. > > as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as > being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus > here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either. > > > > > > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in > the > > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the > > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from > the > > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the > > present lopsidedness of the MAG. > > > > fine > > > > > > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, > or > > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for > > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of > > judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a > > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes > > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, > and > > normally be explained. > > no objection > > > > > > > > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of > how > > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further > > explore the implications of this criterion. > > > > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of > India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, > IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. > > Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-). > > On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I > have written often and extensively on this list that those people > participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like > myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and > well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This > is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in > the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in > domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their > employers bottom line. > > All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of > volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who > participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These > technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that > doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. > > > > > > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > > applicable, special interest groups. > > > > > > fine > > > > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > > > > ok > > > > > > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > stakeholder > > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by > the > UN > > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of > logistics > > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the > > present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central > > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present > > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host > country > > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host > country > > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive > role > > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an > open > > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over- > represented > > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant > government > > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late > to > > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > over > as > > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement > for > > the 2009 meeting onwards. > > ok > > > > > > > > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater > > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any > > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the > > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an > > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its > Tunis > > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do > it? > > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of > working > > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about > improving > > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for > delivering > > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for > > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of > > formalization of these by the MAG. > > > > no objection > > > > > > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this > report? > > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that > an > > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not > just > > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that > the > > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much > look > > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the > area > > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional > > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF > like > > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi- > stakeholder, > > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to > relevant > > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and > national > > levels. > > > > ok > > > > > > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is > one > > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > meeting > > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February > > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive > results > > from that meeting. > > > > > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful > > participation in its open consultations. > > > > Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation > in the MAG itself? > > > > > > > (Closing thank you stuff ) > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: > 11/02/2008 > 08:16 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: > 11/02/2008 > 08:16 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 03:27:43 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:27:43 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080212071549.BB4F86781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <099501c86d51$2c762d20$8b00a8c0@IAN> Perhaps now and in this response is the time to clarify what is meant by technical community. The relevant paragraph might be "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community’s presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection." Perhaps we can say something like "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which they should be selected. Indeed, if it is purely technical knowledge which is required, roles of Special Advisers might be more appropriate, and persons with great technical knowledge such as Louis Pouzin and Robert Kahn who have no direct association with Internet administration bodies should be considered. For the representatives of existing Internet administration bodies, however, we believe the suggestion that they should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to might be appropriate, along with the role of the organisation they represent" Anyway that’s a suggestion - I think we should address this issue one way or another and I'm sure some better words can be found. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 12 February 2008 18:15 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'McTim' Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical > community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer > in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current > internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to > include > people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. Very Much Agree, Ian. We would have a done the IG arena some very useful service if we questioned the term' tech community' in the manner you have suggested and clarify its meaning and usage. As indicated in my email, we should propose that the current IG bodies should be given a separate quota of around 6 because I do think they should be represented in the MAG. Only this confusion is best done away with. So we know that the tech community as selected for the MAG is a different category than the count of them that McTim made for this list. However, I don’t know what criteria he used in counting tech community members on this list. Can you please clarify, McTim. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical > community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer > in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current > internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to > include > people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. > > The dilemma here needs to be addressed carefully. We should remember that > people like Francis Muguet and Louis Pouzin (the latter very worthy of a > "technical community" tag) have set up a separate mailing list and have > begun to caucus separately largely because they felt that this main list > had > been taken over by representatives of this unclearly named and identified > group. > > What's clear is that it is not in our interests for civil society to be > irreconcilably split on this. Equally, it is not good for civil society to > be dominated by people whose interests are primarily to maintain a status > quo or to protect the power base of existing bodies without necessarily > giving due consideration to proposals for change. > > However, the worst possible outcome would be for the sometimes passionate > debates between those who support and/or represent existing bodies, and > those who see a need for change, to stop. I think the exchange of views > here > is important, and at times we may need to put forward CS positions which > indicate that there are differing viewpoints in CS on some issues. In > fact, > the issue of "technical community" involvement may be one such case. > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 12 February 2008 15:53 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > hi, > > kudos for the draft. Comments inline: > > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > We appreciate the transparency measures .. (here we can mention our > > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best > to > > take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) > > fine > > > > > > > > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > > > > > > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name > 'MAG', > > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a > name, > > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of > this > > body. > > > > > > ok > > > > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third > of > > them should be rotated every year. > > > > I think it is an unwieldy number. I would prefer 20, but could > stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be > unlikely to move off 40 tho. > > > > > > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > > civil society, and business sector. > > > > > > and the technical community > > > > > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > > political representation based on interests of, or representation of > > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear > from > > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all > the > > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance > at > > the time of final selection. > > > > I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that > you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate > representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those > "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say > that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > > 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) > 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) > 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) > 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) > 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) > 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström) > 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > > This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS > "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other > NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, > ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from > our charter). > > Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I > don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but > they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical > community folk). > > In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems > unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th > stakeholder group. > > as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as > being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus > here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either. > > > > > > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in > the > > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the > > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from > the > > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the > > present lopsidedness of the MAG. > > > > fine > > > > > > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on > > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, > or > > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for > > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of > > judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a > > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes > > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, > and > > normally be explained. > > no objection > > > > > > > > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of > how > > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further > > explore the implications of this criterion. > > > > ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho. For example, the govt of > India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India, > IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim. > > Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-). > > On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I > have written often and extensively on this list that those people > participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like > myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and > well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This > is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in > the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in > domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their > employers bottom line. > > All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of > volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who > participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These > technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that > doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities. > > > > > > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > > applicable, special interest groups. > > > > > > fine > > > > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > > > > ok > > > > > > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > stakeholder > > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by > the > UN > > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of > logistics > > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the > > present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central > > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present > > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host > country > > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host > country > > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive > role > > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an > open > > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over- > represented > > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant > government > > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late > to > > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > over > as > > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement > for > > the 2009 meeting onwards. > > ok > > > > > > > > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater > > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any > > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the > > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an > > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its > Tunis > > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do > it? > > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of > working > > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about > improving > > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for > delivering > > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for > > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of > > formalization of these by the MAG. > > > > no objection > > > > > > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this > report? > > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that > an > > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not > just > > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that > the > > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much > look > > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the > area > > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > > > > ok > > > > > > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional > > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF > like > > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi- > stakeholder, > > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to > relevant > > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and > national > > levels. > > > > ok > > > > > > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is > one > > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > meeting > > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February > > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive > results > > from that meeting. > > > > > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful > > participation in its open consultations. > > > > Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation > in the MAG itself? > > > > > > > (Closing thank you stuff ) > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: > 11/02/2008 > 08:16 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: > 11/02/2008 > 08:16 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 04:03:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:33:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080212090335.CA62567814@smtp1.electricembers.net> I agree with Adam's suggestion of two lists - one open and the other closed. The business conducted on the closed list should be listed and also summarized, as appropriate. We can suggest further changes after assessing how such an arrangement works over a period of time. I also agree with Adam that complete public openness of MAG deliberations may involve some very significant ramifications. The foremost is about the level of participation of gov reps, who do hold a lot of power, in many different ways. I am given to understand that their participation on the MAG list is already very low. Will it further reduce with the new openness of the list? What ramification does it has on MAG's capacity to make decisions (which, in a politically diverse setting, almost always involve some compromises) on substantive issues, which we hope it is able to do at some time. On the other hand we do want as much transparency as possible in global public policy bodies. Jeremy, you are speaking about a third possible list where MAG members participate as well as anyone else. Will have to further explore the viability of such a list in the present circumstances. MAG members may not be too eager to be on such a list, what do you say, Adam. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:13 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; linda misek-falkoff > Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers > > On 10/02/2008, at 11:44 PM, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > > Does it help - do you think - if all those in the more admin and > > decisional body are also in the more general list, sometimes called > > a member list? > > > On a tangent to this, it is little-known that there is already a > mailing list for all IGF stakeholders, which the Secretariat created > at my request but which they have not promoted or even linked to, and > which has therefore been basically unused. (See > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org.) > The ideal case would be if, rather than necessarily creating a new > list, all the Advisory Group members joined this list, and invited all > the other stakeholders to do so, and started interacting with the rest > of us as peers. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 12 04:27:57 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:27:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080212071549.BB4F86781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080212071549.BB4F86781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <38DAF3F5-0A0C-42A6-808D-C543447A959A@ras.eu.org> Le 12 févr. 08 à 08:15, Parminder a écrit : > >> Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the >> "technical >> community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a >> misnomer >> in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of >> current >> internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to >> include >> people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading. > > Very Much Agree, Ian. We would have a done the IG arena some very > useful > service if we questioned the term' tech community' in the manner > you have > suggested and clarify its meaning and usage. Strongly agree too. Not only this (conceptually as well as politically) much needed clarification would be useful for the IGF, but for other arenas, including intergovernmental organizations that are currently making some steps towards "inclusion" of non-gov, non- business actors. And, wherever these efforts are undertaken to include civil society, the "technical community" as an additional stakeholder is now mentioned. We have to avoid this very dangerous slippery slope. [Note that sometimes there are also tentatives to include "academia" as a stakeholder per se. This generally rather occur is arenas traditionally focusing on cultural issues, e.g. Unesco. Although this shoudn't be ignored, it has less consequences, specially since "academia" could easily be merged (back) with civil society.] We have two main objective arguments to advance this clarification: 1. internet administration bodies exist, are well identified as organized bodies (be they incorporated or not), and can be *represented*. In addition, their number (less than 10) is manageable. 2. as Parminder has clearly explained, "Technical community’s presence is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature." So the technical expertise, as well as any other kind of expertise, is transversal not only to any organization or body in the IG field, and is present inside all stakeholders (governments, business, internet administration bodies, civil society). This means that the technical expertise does not need to be a requirement at the global arena level, but at the stakeholder level, leaving up to each stakeholder to include technical expertise when found necessary. Back to the MAG issue specifically, and regarding Adam's concern that it would be difficult to thin down the MAG because of government representation. If there's one stakeholder that is well organized, it's the governmental stakeholder, no doubt in this. Governements may follow their well defined structuration following the UN regions, and there are 6 of them. Otherwise, the MAG can only get bigger, per the equal division between stakeholder requirement, and based on the so-called "equal footing" claim of the IGF. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 12 04:59:46 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:59:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] communicating with our peers In-Reply-To: <20080212090335.CA62567814@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080212090335.CA62567814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >I agree with Adam's suggestion of two lists - one open and the other closed. >The business conducted on the closed list should be listed and also >summarized, as appropriate. We can suggest further changes after assessing >how such an arrangement works over a period of time. > >I also agree with Adam that complete public openness of MAG deliberations >may involve some very significant ramifications. The foremost is about the >level of participation of gov reps, who do hold a lot of power, in many >different ways. I am given to understand that their participation on the MAG >list is already very low. Will it further reduce with the new openness of >the list? What ramification does it has on MAG's capacity to make decisions >(which, in a politically diverse setting, almost always involve some >compromises) on substantive issues, which we hope it is able to do at some >time. Worth remembering we've come a long way in just a few years. 4 or 5 years ago the caucus spent quite a bit if time wondering when the govts would next ask us to leave the room, and how to use the 3 minutes speaking time we might have been given each day. As Nitin's said a few times, governments are the ones being asked to make the greatest changes in the ways they are used to working. This probably explains why they tend to participate less in the MAG (certainly on the mailing list, I think more contribute to the face to face meetings.) >On the other hand we do want as much transparency as possible in global >public policy bodies. > >Jeremy, you are speaking about a third possible list where MAG members >participate as well as anyone else. Will have to further explore the >viability of such a list in the present circumstances. MAG members may not >be too eager to be on such a list, what do you say, Adam. > Most of us are already on many lists. I can see a third list being attractive in an ideal world, but means there would be the MAG list, the CS list(s) (for me, others would be on their own "stakeholder" lists), and then a new third list. I'm just not sure how much to ask of volunteers. Adam >Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 05:01:36 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:01:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47b14290.1d078e0a.4648.ffffe69aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <47b14290.1d078e0a.4648.ffffe69aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2008 9:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > Thanks for responding. > > I will discuss the main issue of tech community representation first, and > respond to others a little later. > > Your analysis of the possible practical consequences of a simple 3 way > division of members for CS membership is quite logical. I quite understand > that most of these IG institutions will need to be represented in the MAG > for it to do any meaningful work. I am willing to consider a separate > category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG > institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally divided among > three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and other > members response to this proposal. Is this "enhanced cooperation"? If Adam's count is correct, then cutting the number of Internet community/technical community reps on the MAG in half seems to me to be "reduced cooperation". > > In this case one will know that each member clearly represents a particular > institution (and, if it makes any sense, they collectively represent the > interests of the extant IG establishment). These institutions surely have > legitimate interests and the right to represent them. > > The problem is of mixing of these interests with those represented by CS. CS > by definition represents non-institutional interests(non-gov, non-market, > and if now we have add another category, non- existing IG bodies). That's > the meaning of CS. Well that's A meaning, but not THE only meaning: I have given this before, but for those not on the list at that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition by any reasonable (IMHO) definition, ALL of the pre-exisitng "IG" bodies are squarely in the mainstream of CS. Before we define "internet Technical Community, I would say that we as a group need to define what is CS. However, since, in our charter, we have "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making.", I would say CS for us are those folk whose interests are to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making." Is this an acceptable definition? > > With technical community I understand a community of people with high degree > of technical expertise. But this expertise can be used to further X > company's interests of propertisizing as much of the global ICT > infrastructure as possible, Can you give examples of this in the IG field? From my perspective, I don't see this happening, although in theory, it's certainly possible. as much as for Y country's censorship and > surveillance system. Association with these activities will not make them > any less 'technical' or take away their membership of 'technical community', > or will it. probably not, it's a "big tent" kind of thing, with no one excluded because of their day job. > > And there are those technical community members who spend a lot of time and > resources to uphold public interest values, which makes them worthy civil > society members/ leaders. This is one of the "criteria" I used when I went through the list. I looked for names and emails that I am familiar with from IETF/numbering/ICANN/infrastructure operation lists., people I have met at various meetings etc. I probably skipped some folk I am not familiar with. it was a quick "back of a fag packet" count. My point was that there are lots of those folk on this list, enough to make the notion of eliminating (maybe even reducing) the 4th stakeholder group a non-starter. > > But when I said every group should bring in adequate technical expertise in > their nominations for MAG, I wasn't looking for all the kinds of expertise > represented in the above list you have given. Many of these have no > technical expertise at all. > > In this list many of those passing off as 'technical community members' have > had nothing to do with technology. Theresa Swineheart representing ICANN is > a lawyer ( a law graduate at least) and so is the new ICANN chair (with a > long background of representing the IPR constituency), and I am sure many > others in the above list may not be technical persons. Here is where lots of folks go awry when they speak of "technical community". Much of the work of the "technical community" is simply administrative. Boring, mundane, sometimes arcane administrivia, but needs to be done. Lawyers can do it, and in fact are quite useful at times. I certainly think that the lawyer in question in this example has a strong desire to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making." > So, what really is the definition of this technical community - on what > criteria do you exclude someone who may be an outstandingly capable > technical expert leading a country's surveillance activity, and include > lawyers in this category. what really is the definition of this technical community?? Well, IMO, pre WSIS, the "internet community" was those folks involved in ICANN/IETF/RIR/NOG/INET/ccTLD/ISOC/$NAME_OF_GROUP. Literally dozens of organisations (maybe hundreds or thousands). Now, post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way. So the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical community". In short, all are welcome, so I am not sure there can be A definition, It's certainly out of scope for the likes of me. It may even be out of scope for this list (we can define ourselves, but can we impose a definition on another group, however overlapping)? Your other question in the above para is an interesting one, and I have an example for you. When I went to WSIS, I saw an acquaintance of mine who works for the Tunisian Internet Agency. According to http://www.opennetinitiative.net/tunisia "Tunisia has deployed the Internet in a way that implements a multi-layered architecture of control. All of the state's Internet Service Providers (ISPs) purchase access from Tunisia's Internet Agency, which performs filtering at the network backbone. " So the guy's day job puts him outside of CS, but his interests (hobby?) lead him to participate in the "Internet technical Community" in a CS role. I know him, certainly, as someone working "to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making." Shrodinger's cat, innit! In short, I don't think it wise or useful for us to exclude lawyers or folk whose companies work may be involved in some kind of censorship. If you did that, then arguably, all staff of Yahoo/Google/Cisco/$NAME_OF_COMPANY would have to be excluded from CS becasue of acts of commission or ommision by their employer. Taken to extreme, that might include everyone on this list who actually went to Tunisia for WSIS! > > We all recognize and greatly respect all the work, sacrifices etc done by > great technical persons in making the Internet into what it is, and perhaps > in keeping it so. If this were really the case, then you would participate with those folk in the pre-WSIS bodies, no? >These are the people who stood by public interest values> and did not allow themselves to be supplanted to narrow insituional > interests. And as I said they must rate as CS leaders. Our problem is that > the 'term 'technical community' is deliberated employed in confusing ways to > use the cover of legitimacy of the great work done by these persons for > narrow sectional interests. Can we have examples please? As above, i don't see this in reality, but again, in theory, possible. And yes, often times, technical experts > themselves feel the pangs of 'power' going out of their hands as Internet > becomes something requiring great social and political attention, and > contribute to this continued obfuscation of the meaning of the term > 'technical community'. IMO, it's nothing like "'power' going out of their hands", it's the wastefulness of building new fora (that aren't as multistakeholder/bottom-up as the old ones) instead of participating in the pre-existing fora. > > So, lets get our definitions right, and then we can argue about what to do > with which group. In light of above, can you tell me what you mean by > 'technical community'. See above, yes, and no. > > If it means technical experts who want to work for upholding public interest > values, they are simply civil society members, with special knowledge of the > subject, and therefore deserving special attention from all of us. > > It is means any person who have a high degree of technical expertise, I am > not willing to give someone working on entrenching an x company's monopoly > on the Internet any special political representation, on account of his tech > competency, on any public policy body. > That's certainly not in my experience. > If the term means representatives of exiting IG institutions, yes, these can > together be given 6-7 positions on the MAG. I am open to that. We will then > know exactly what and whom do they represent. but there are hundreds of "Internet technical community" bodies that are then "unrepresented".. What about all the NRENs/NOGs/whitehats/white(grey or black list operators/non-RIR IPv6 fora and NGOs/etc, etc.?? >From whom do they seek representation? If there are indeed 11 or 12 on the MAG, I for one am happy to maintain this "status quo". It doesn't appear to me to be broken! Can you trim your mails please? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Tue Feb 12 05:11:54 2008 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:11:54 +0100 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: <00a401c86cc4$9a06dcf0$ce1496d0$@net> References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> <00a401c86cc4$9a06dcf0$ce1496d0$@net> Message-ID: Hi all I work for Diplo and would like informally to complement the information below. Diplo does offer fellowships as part of its Internet governance capacity building programme (IGCBP). These fellowships are granted to our Diplo Alumni for the Summer School and also to other important initiatives such as ICANN Studienkreis (who happens to be also run under the leadership of Wolfgang). Other fellowships I can think of now are IGF Secretariat and Connect Africa (ITU), but there are several others. I will be happy to discuss new partnerships with the initiatives of your institutions - do write me off-list so we can exchange ideas. Because of the positive results and the impact of the IGCBP, we are able to run the fourth annual edition. Applications can be made at http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/Activities/display.asp?Topic=Call For those of you interested to know more, check http://www.diplomacy.edu/links/emerging_leaders - the Emerging Leaders publication illustrates the stories of some of the hundreds of people who are part of our Diplo Alumni community. Best, Seiiti On Feb 11, 2008 4:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Aaron, DIPLO has a lot of funding available. So they can offer, and > publicize, fellowships. > > > > A university in Germany – perhaps not as much? > > > > Perhaps the material can be posted online or some other e-learning > measures can be worked out – they will work out cheaper, in both the short > and the long run than flying people to Germany for a summer's worth of > courses. > > > > AFNOG – held along with AFRINIC meetings – does have a fellowships program > that may be relevant to Internet issues, and possibly to some internet > governance issues though from a technical standpoint. I manage the > fellowships for two similar conferences, but they are focused on the asiapac > and on south asia respectively, so there's a regional requirement for > fellows, besides the obvious background / qualification etc requirements > > > > Not to mention the "fun" developing country residents who don't have a > previous history of foreign travel can have when trying to apply for a > visa. > > > > Of course, there is a very high incidence of fraudulent applications at > any visa post, so they're bound to do due diligence. And that can result in > situations where a process that can take minutes to apply + maybe a couple > of days to process for some people from developing countries can easily > become a long drawn out process for others. > > > > suresh > > > > *From:* Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2008 9:03 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Subject:* Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School > on Governance of the Internet > > > > Suresh wrote > > "How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though they > know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this course, > or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that a > fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded?" > > A strategic and apt question. But then, one must understand that it was > due to the fact that no avenue was provided as to where to seek for > sponsorship. In normal cases, hints are provided about scholarships and > applicants called upon to channel their demands. DIPLO excels at this. > > The organizers of the excellent programme (perharps so bogged down by > curricula activities involved in such a programme) took this aspect of > sponsorship lightly. > > It is not late my very dear Suresh, just do provide the link where > applications for scholarship could be fowarded. This can help in setting > up a data bank of some resources for the programme... for future use, who > knows. > > > > Aaron > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Feb 12 06:34:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:04:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080212113455.C95FEA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> McTim There are many parts of your email that I will like to engage with, but lets try to focus on the main issue involved. About definition of the technical community, and the nature of their representation in the MAG. > Before we define "internet Technical Community, I would say that we as > a group need to define what is CS. However, since, in our charter, we > have "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by > individual and organizational civil society actors who came together > in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making.", I would say CS for us are those folk whose interests > are to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making." > > Is this an acceptable definition? Pl note, (1) as per the quoted statement IGC includes only 'civil society actors' who 'promote global public interest'. At the time of voting we had used the self-assessment criterion for describing who is CS, but we do have some limits in mind, and would use them if some very clear deviant behavior is observed. Also we do not mean that no other actors (non CS) could possibly promote public interest, we just do not include them in our group. So, your definition is not acceptable. Not everyone promoting public interest in IG policy making is included in CS/ IGC. I know many government officials who for sure promote public interest. (2) though we (IGC) haven't described 'public interest' (and there is always this desire to define it better, which we shd) every advocacy group like ours work on some, stated or unstated, common values and broad meaning of 'public interest'. Abt the tech community somewhere else you say, everyone is welcome, and you gave an interesting Tunisian example. This is not true of any CS advocacy group, and it is not true of this group. For instance, a religious group with some funny views on gender equality will immediately be thrown out. So, also with regards to matters involving basic interpretations of HRs. > what really is the definition of this technical community?? > > Well, IMO, pre WSIS, the "internet community" was those folks involved > in ICANN/IETF/RIR/NOG/INET/ccTLD/ISOC/$NAME_OF_GROUP. > Literally dozens of organisations (maybe hundreds or thousands). Now, > post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet > Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way. So > the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical > community". > > In short, all are welcome, so I am not sure there can be A definition, > It's certainly out of scope for the likes of me. It may even be out > of scope for this list (we can define ourselves, but can we impose a > definition on another group, however overlapping)? A political definition of a group has to be with respect of the interests it represents, not by membership of organizations, as you give above. We already have proposed that these organizations be given representation separately. The problem is why they seek this nebulous caucusing around an indefinable 'technical expertise' community. I think both sides (these organizations, and the general tech community) do derive some power from this 'alliance' which is THE problem. (sorry to make a negative analysis of this kind.) As I said people with technical expertise are welcome to work with others in the CS for promoting public interest, why do they seek separate constituency and recognition. And why don't these organizations agree to just seek representation of themselves rather than this unidentifiable tech community, with which a lot of (well deserved) virtue and a certain halo is associated - which, the submission here is, is used to feign legitimacy. Those who holds position of power (to be able to make substantial contribution to any decision that impacts other people's life) in any of these organizations are to be treated differently than those who merely engage with them (ALAC/NCUC etc). As a citizen, I myself do engage with my government in many structural forms, some of them very participatory. That doesn't make me a part of the government. I know horizontal IETF like groups (but not ICANN) are different. Here if you have strong influence on decision making, in that identity you hold power, and are accountable to others. In the identity of a participant you yourself may extract accountability of others. So yes you can be within these organizations like IETF can be in CS as well, but it does not obliterate the line between power-exercising institutions, and CS. Your commitment within the CS group will be to the agreed/ understood common public interest objectives, and not of promoting any institutional form for 'its own sake', as a rep of that institution is likely to do. So, unless we are committed not to see it, the different between power (in a very broad meaning) exercising institutions and civil society is not difficult to see. And this distinction is the very basis of possibilities and mechanisms of extracting accountability of institutions, the central task of CS. Confounding the two does great damage to CS's cause, and this is the reason we are trying to make this distinction. Now, > post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet > Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way. So > the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical > community". This is abusing the meaning of 'community'. Just say Internet technical admin groups/ organizations or the like. There can be no 'community' which exercises power through and as these organizations and an outside community that is subject to their decisions. There is no meaning in speaking of a power-exercising community within (wider)community. This description doesn't have any meaning in the way the term community is supposed to be used. And the semantics of 'community' is a very political terrain, perhaps the most political of all. These groups you speak of may be big and diverse (though not always, in terms of real power-excercing), and we should factor it in. But calling it a community is not appropriate. They exercise power, and if they weren't we all wont be wasting time here seeking methods to ensure their accountability. (and no one seeks accountability of a 'community'. It is supposed to be the most sovereign of all entities - ideally.) That is the problem we have in describing these groups you speak of as a 'community'. This is an attempt to legitimatize them without external accountabilities we seek of them. So lets call them what they are, a couple of power-exercising organizations, some of them very democratically managed (like some more democratic states, or even more so) and let CS organize in a manner in relation to them that is basically accountability extracting - but also keep space for strategic and tactical partnerships to further public interest, as we do with other sectors. At this point whether 6 seats or 10 for this group is not the main issue, its conceptual and real nexus with CS which creates problems for CS to carry out its required tasks effectively is the issue. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:32 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > On Feb 12, 2008 9:53 AM, Parminder wrote: > > McTim > > > > Thanks for responding. > > > > I will discuss the main issue of tech community representation first, > and > > respond to others a little later. > > > > Your analysis of the possible practical consequences of a simple 3 way > > division of members for CS membership is quite logical. I quite > understand > > that most of these IG institutions will need to be represented in the > MAG > > for it to do any meaningful work. I am willing to consider a separate > > category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG > > institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally divided > among > > three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and > other > > members response to this proposal. > > Is this "enhanced cooperation"? If Adam's count is correct, then > cutting the number of Internet community/technical community reps on > the MAG in half seems to me to be "reduced cooperation". > > > > > In this case one will know that each member clearly represents a > particular > > institution (and, if it makes any sense, they collectively represent the > > interests of the extant IG establishment). These institutions surely > have > > legitimate interests and the right to represent them. > > > > The problem is of mixing of these interests with those represented by > CS. CS > > by definition represents non-institutional interests(non-gov, non- > market, > > and if now we have add another category, non- existing IG bodies). > That's > > the meaning of CS. > > Well that's A meaning, but not THE only meaning: > > I have given this before, but for those not on the list at that time: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition > > by any reasonable (IMHO) definition, ALL of the pre-exisitng "IG" > bodies are squarely in the mainstream of CS. > > Before we define "internet Technical Community, I would say that we as > a group need to define what is CS. However, since, in our charter, we > have "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by > individual and organizational civil society actors who came together > in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making.", I would say CS for us are those folk whose interests > are to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making." > > Is this an acceptable definition? > > > > > With technical community I understand a community of people with high > degree > > of technical expertise. But this expertise can be used to further X > > company's interests of propertisizing as much of the global ICT > > infrastructure as possible, > > Can you give examples of this in the IG field? From my perspective, I > don't see this happening, although in theory, it's certainly possible. > > as much as for Y country's censorship and > > surveillance system. Association with these activities will not make > them > > any less 'technical' or take away their membership of 'technical > community', > > or will it. > > probably not, it's a "big tent" kind of thing, with no one excluded > because of their day job. > > > > > And there are those technical community members who spend a lot of time > and > > resources to uphold public interest values, which makes them worthy > civil > > society members/ leaders. > > This is one of the "criteria" I used when I went through the list. I > looked for names and emails that I am familiar with from > IETF/numbering/ICANN/infrastructure operation lists., people I have > met at various meetings etc. I probably skipped some folk I am not > familiar with. it was a quick "back of a fag packet" count. My point > was that there are lots of those folk on this list, enough to make the > notion of eliminating (maybe even reducing) the 4th stakeholder group > a non-starter. > > > > > But when I said every group should bring in adequate technical expertise > in > > their nominations for MAG, I wasn't looking for all the kinds of > expertise > > represented in the above list you have given. Many of these have no > > technical expertise at all. > > > > In this list many of those passing off as 'technical community members' > have > > had nothing to do with technology. Theresa Swineheart representing ICANN > is > > a lawyer ( a law graduate at least) and so is the new ICANN chair (with > a > > long background of representing the IPR constituency), and I am sure > many > > others in the above list may not be technical persons. > > Here is where lots of folks go awry when they speak of "technical > community". Much of the work of the "technical community" is simply > administrative. Boring, mundane, sometimes arcane administrivia, but > needs to be done. Lawyers can do it, and in fact are quite useful at > times. I certainly think that the lawyer in question in this example > has a strong desire to "promote global public interest objectives in > Internet governance policy making." > > > > So, what really is the definition of this technical community - on what > > criteria do you exclude someone who may be an outstandingly capable > > technical expert leading a country's surveillance activity, and include > > lawyers in this category. > > what really is the definition of this technical community?? > > Well, IMO, pre WSIS, the "internet community" was those folks involved > in ICANN/IETF/RIR/NOG/INET/ccTLD/ISOC/$NAME_OF_GROUP. > Literally dozens of organisations (maybe hundreds or thousands). Now, > post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet > Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way. So > the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical > community". > > In short, all are welcome, so I am not sure there can be A definition, > It's certainly out of scope for the likes of me. It may even be out > of scope for this list (we can define ourselves, but can we impose a > definition on another group, however overlapping)? > > Your other question in the above para is an interesting one, and I > have an example for you. When I went to WSIS, I saw an acquaintance > of mine who works for the Tunisian Internet Agency. According to > http://www.opennetinitiative.net/tunisia > > "Tunisia has deployed the Internet in a way that implements a > multi-layered architecture of control. All of the state's Internet > Service Providers (ISPs) purchase access from Tunisia's Internet > Agency, which performs filtering at the network backbone. " > > So the guy's day job puts him outside of CS, but his interests > (hobby?) lead him to participate in the "Internet technical Community" > in a CS role. I know him, certainly, as someone working "to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy > making." > > Shrodinger's cat, innit! > > In short, I don't think it wise or useful for us to exclude lawyers or > folk whose companies work may be involved in some kind of censorship. > If you did that, then arguably, all staff of > Yahoo/Google/Cisco/$NAME_OF_COMPANY would have to be excluded from CS > becasue of acts of commission or ommision by their employer. Taken to > extreme, that might include everyone on this list who actually went to > Tunisia for WSIS! > > > > > We all recognize and greatly respect all the work, sacrifices etc done > by > > great technical persons in making the Internet into what it is, and > perhaps > > in keeping it so. > > If this were really the case, then you would participate with those > folk in the pre-WSIS bodies, no? > > >These are the people who stood by public interest values> and did not > allow themselves to be supplanted to narrow insituional > > interests. And as I said they must rate as CS leaders. Our problem is > that > > the 'term 'technical community' is deliberated employed in confusing > ways to > > use the cover of legitimacy of the great work done by these persons for > > narrow sectional interests. > > Can we have examples please? As above, i don't see this in reality, > but again, in theory, possible. > > And yes, often times, technical experts > > themselves feel the pangs of 'power' going out of their hands as > Internet > > becomes something requiring great social and political attention, and > > contribute to this continued obfuscation of the meaning of the term > > 'technical community'. > > IMO, it's nothing like "'power' going out of their hands", it's the > wastefulness of building new fora (that aren't as > multistakeholder/bottom-up as the old ones) instead of participating > in the pre-existing fora. > > > > > So, lets get our definitions right, and then we can argue about what to > do > > with which group. In light of above, can you tell me what you mean by > > 'technical community'. > > See above, yes, and no. > > > > > If it means technical experts who want to work for upholding public > interest > > values, they are simply civil society members, with special knowledge of > the > > subject, and therefore deserving special attention from all of us. > > > > It is means any person who have a high degree of technical expertise, I > am > > not willing to give someone working on entrenching an x company's > monopoly > > on the Internet any special political representation, on account of his > tech > > competency, on any public policy body. > > > > That's certainly not in my experience. > > > If the term means representatives of exiting IG institutions, yes, these > can > > together be given 6-7 positions on the MAG. I am open to that. We will > then > > know exactly what and whom do they represent. > > but there are hundreds of "Internet technical community" bodies that > are then "unrepresented".. What about all the > NRENs/NOGs/whitehats/white(grey or black list operators/non-RIR IPv6 > fora and NGOs/etc, etc.?? > From whom do they seek representation? > > If there are indeed 11 or 12 on the MAG, I for one am happy to > maintain this "status quo". It doesn't appear to me to be broken! > > > > Can you trim your mails please? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 07:25:24 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:25:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, A few observations in relation to Parminder¹s promising draft statement and related matters. Drafting Process. This has been said a number of times by various people since the WSIS days but again, it really would be a lot easier to work out consensus on draft texts using a wiki. It¹s pretty labor intensive trying to dig through list traffic in order to keep straight multiple conversations on different points in the text and figure out the state of play on each, particularly when all messages have the same heading. Maybe it won¹t be possible in this case with the consultation being soon, but down the road wouldn¹t it make sense to put one up linked to whichever website we want to use going forward, Adam¹s old one www.net-gov.org or Avri¹s newer one www.igcaucus.org? (Also would be nice consolidate all docs at whichever, many caucus statements etc are at neither---would need a little WG to do this stuff I guess). Document Format and Distribution. We have often made statements of 1-2 pages covering multiple points and just read them out, and inevitably some of those points fail to resonate and remain focal points of the conversation as listeners¹ attention wanders etc. Might not it make sense to a) have topical headers for each point or cluster of points, b) in making the statement, signal the chair that we would particularly welcome follow-on discussion on xyz so he explicitly puts it to the floor, and c) put a big stack of hard copies at the back of the room next to the inevitable ISOC/ICC snazzily formatted contributions? Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it¹s a non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder¹s wording on size and rotation. On reducing the number of government participants, on the hand, this is tough not only because of the regional formulas etc but also just because of the need for political buy-in, which obviously isn¹t acute across the board. On the other hand, it would seem that some don¹t contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that we¹d hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? Or would that be viewed as unfair to lurkers needed on diversity grounds, e.g. LDCs? In a similar vein (I guess this goes to both selection and rotation), would it be sensible to suggest a no empty seats sort of rule? Empanelling and retaining people that are not in a position to or just don¹t come in order to have diversity on the masthead seems like a wasted opportunity. Technical and Administrative Community. We¹ve had this debate on and off since WGIG, and while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder¹s draft (which has never been particularly well received by anyone other than a few developing country governments), arguably, that ship set sail some time ago. The decision was made to (over) include them, albeit sans explicit labeling, so to now argue that they removed even if only as an implicit category is a rather divisive proposition, and one on which we¹d be unlikely to get consensus or prevail. So do we want to go back and restart the argument, which would probably not play out in a reasoned manner, invites broader ontological debates (what is CS, what is the public interest...), and could distract attention from other issues? At this point I¹m inclined to support Adam¹s view, > My problem with the technical community isn't > that they are represented, but there are too > many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from > private sector and civil society respectively. > And I think people generally recognize a close > alignment between the private sector and > technical community (it is certainly apparent > inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a > rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech > community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim Co-chairs. Agree with the point but think the pararaph could be more concise. Wouldn¹t hurt to note that on this we agree with PS & T&A. Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics. I¹m glad Parminder touched them, but I¹m not sure a series of questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it¹d be possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) Listservs. We¹ve had this parallel thread but the issue¹s not mentioned in the draft statement. Wouldn¹t it have more oomph if we did it here rather than just as an informal Œsense of the caucus¹ conveyed by Adam and Jeanette to the mAG? It seems that there's support for two lists, subject to Adam¹s proviso, > Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the > closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about > this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion > going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some > form). If the closed list were used to excess then it should be > obvious. I understand Jeremy¹s desire regard the third inclusive list but just don¹t see mAG people, particularly governmentals, doing this. Cheers, Bill On 2/11/08 6:53 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > (starts) > > We appreciate the transparency measuresŠŠ.. (here we can mention our > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to take > them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) > > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. > > - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name ŒMAG¹, > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this > body. > > - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of them > should be rotated every year. > > - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, civil > society, and business sector. > > - On the issue of representation of technical community it is important > to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political > representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests > through, these three sectors. Technical community¹s presence on the other hand > is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a > different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs > of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the > technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be > appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise > criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection. > > - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the selection > process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the same sector > as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the present lopsidedness > of the MAG. > > - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is > difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder > group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of > civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > selecting authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise > of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations > from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the > minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. > > - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the > technical community that ³AG members should be chosen on the basis of how > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than > "represent")². We very much agree with this, and will like to further explore > the implications of this criterion. > > - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > applicable, special interest groups. > > - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, > as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be > represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. > > - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement > that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul > IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and > responsibility between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does > the UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG¹s interface with > the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG¹s principal role/ > responsibility) and the host country chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? > How much role does the host country chair have in substantive issues? Does not > too much of an substantive role for the host country chair seen together with > the fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will in any > case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that > a constant government chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It > may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi > meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > over as a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement > for the 2009 meeting onwards. > > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater clarity > of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any substantive > role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the annual IGF > meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an appropriate role for it > to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does > not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the > secretariat and the UN SG to do so? > > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving its > decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for substantive > matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of formalization of these > by the MAG. > > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? If > not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just by > the UN SG¹s office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area of > IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. > > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional level > IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like to > directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national > levels. > > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of > the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the > meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential > funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this > issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society > from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful > participation in its open consultations. > > (Closing thank you stuff Š) > > (ends) > -------------- 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 Tue Feb 12 07:39:37 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:39:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080212113455.C95FEA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080212113455.C95FEA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that we are talking past each other. so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will just state: 1) I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it). 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, but the IGF certainly needs them. If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community. /McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Tue Feb 12 08:45:32 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:15:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080212134534.9A9E06781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Friends, The debate on the inclusion of the fourth group of the 'technical community' is quite interesting. I thought Parminder made a simple and straight proposition, excerpt below: "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature .... The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors ...". This proposition is based on a strong principle - viz political representation determines membership of a public structure as MAG. The 'technical community' just does not fit in, on this ground. The refutations of this principle have not come from any ground of principle, but simply of expediency or strategy ... 'this idea wont work' or 'it was tried and it failed' ... As I understand, the role of CS in every arena, has been to push the envelope on political possibilities, in this specific case it would be on "promoting global public interest objectives in IG policy making." As Wolfgang suggests from time to time, innovations are the need of the hour, since what we face is new and changing. Simply sticking to what we believe 'will work' and refusing to raise issues or agendas that bring in newer progressive possibilities is not playing the CS role. And especially in the IG space, where CS has a much larger role than it gets in other global spaces as WTO/WIPO etc. CS actors will appreciate that even if proposals fail / are ahead of their time, the ideas have will some impact and make a difference over time. This is perhaps better than just keeping mum over issues we know are critical, just because some of us feel they will not succeed. Why the issue is critical, is simply the political question of 'who benefits from status quo and who would benefit from the proposed change' .... This aspect has been hinted in the postings of Ian, Meryem, Milton, Drake .... So I won't delve into it. So I see no reason to accept 'the idea will fail' as the reason why CS should not propose removing the amorphous 'technical community' group and replacing it with a more interest defined 'current IG dispensation' group. This way we are acknowledging the important role of ICANN, ITU et al in the current IG and giving it a front door entry into the MAG. Regards, Guru Ps - if the rationale on including the 'technical community' is expertise, here is my two cents on 'expertise': I agree that technical expertise need not be the monopoly of any 'technical community' group and can be brought to the table by any or all of the three groups. Secondly, we are already seeing and will see more of the fact that political / policy and socio-economic expertises will become more and more important than 'technical expertise' in IG, as the Internet itself grows into an infrastructure affecting these aspects of our lives, from being an altruistic pursuit of some great academic and technical folks. The innovations we need are increasingly more in the policy and political spaces than in the wires and numbers spaces (relatively) which will also define the nature of the challenges that MAG members will face in executing their roles. -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Parminder, I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that we are talking past each other. so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will just state: 1) I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it). 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, but the IGF certainly needs them. If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community. /McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 12 09:54:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:54:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC519@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC519@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it's a non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder's wording on size and rotation. Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion below On the other hand, it would seem that some don't contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that we'd hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? This would be very sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" so that we can agree. We've been through this before, but I fail to understand why so many people decide in advance that you can't ask for what you want because other people may block it politically. That never seems to stop other stakeholders from asking for what they want. We have a duty to ourselves and to the public interest to ask for the right thing. If it gets blocked politically, then so be it. But at the very least it puts pressure on those playing political games with the MAG composition. There are important efficiency and accountability reasons to reduce the size of the MAG substantially. We should and must assert them. We lose nothing by doing so and may gain. On the issue of "technical community" representation, Ian noted, and the point was basically conceded or agreed by all, that these are representatives of current Internet administration bodies. It would be perfectly sufficient to have a representative of ICANN, IETF, and one RIR (not three -- they are all the same politically!!) via the NRO to cover these. If you want 6 of them (and thus a 30-person MAG instead of 15-20) then pick two from each category, making sure that, e.g., ICANN reps include SSAC and not just two staffers. ISPs should definitely be represented too, but clearly they are business interests as well as Internet administrators. But be aware that ISOC is the parent organization of IETF and virtually every major figure in ICANN and RIRs are members and supporters of ISOC, so don't talk as if adding ISOC to an ICANN-IETF-RIR panel is adding anything different rather than just padding the numbers. In many respects ISOC, as a nonprofit association, is more akin to civil society even though it consistently refuses to play with CS. Note the double standards one gets into. We are told that we "must" have 20 governments because there are regional differences among them, and political/cultural/economic differences within the regions. Well, that's true also of ISPs, ISOC, civil society, and so on. We can and we must challenge this, even if the governments have the raw power to not listen to it. Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics. I'm glad Parminder touched them, but I'm not sure a series of questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it'd be possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) and IGP, in its early paper "Building an IG Forum" for the first consultation. Agree with Bill's comments here. I think we should also insist that in creating workshops and plenaries for the annual Forum, the Secretariat and MAG must ensure diversity of viewpoints and air fully the real policy debates that are going on. No more workshops full of content regulation advocates telling each other how right they are to censor the Internet, while next door there are a bunch of free expression advocates telling each other how right they are to oppose it. That's useless. The critical internet resources panel I was on in Rio was poorly balanced; that should not happen again. -------------- 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 Tue Feb 12 10:08:38 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:08:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080212113455.C95FEA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > 1) I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th > stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it). We are talking about reducing the overall size of the MAG. That implies reducing the numbers of ALL groups proportionately. Especially govts. Only civil society, which is currently massively underrepresented, would not need ot be reduced much, but that is only because they are so small already. As noted earlier, if I had my way, the MAG would be 15, of which 3 would be reps of IABs (Internet administration bodies, IETF/W3C, ICANN, RIRs) and 3-4 civil society. > 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder > group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). If we advocate the right thing and have reason and justice on our side and another group chooses to ignore it, that's on them. Not sure what to make of this assertion that they will laugh at us. Will they go "nyaaah, nyaah" and make faces at us too? Omigod! > 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" > (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't > they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, > but the IGF certainly needs them. This is a hollow threat. The IABs are crawling all over the Forum and insisting on padding panels with their reps. They are not about to leave. In truth, each side must be careful not to alienate any other stakeholder grouping. If govts and IABs drive out CS through marginalization, the Forum will collapse, lacking legitimacy. CS will work outside it in protest mode. Same is true of any other pairwise combination. The Internet administration bodies should be in broad agreement with us that governments are massively overrepresented. They should be, and I think are, in agreement that the MAG is too big. Let's emphasize those points of commonality. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 10:58:56 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:58:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, I wouldn¹t suggest not advocating something solely on the grounds that it won¹t be accepted, but I would suggest that political viability ought to at least be part of the calculation when deciding what it¹s worth spending time and collective reputation on. It¹s true that there¹s a bit of an implied double standard in that, but double standards are hardly new here (e.g. govts et al have complained in the past about how long and how forcefully CS people have spoken in consultations etc, but they¹re free to go on and on advocating non-starters etc); comes with being the weakest kids in the sandbox. On the particular issue of govt reps, I guess my point is that IGF suffers from a low level of real commitment to the process from many (attendance, political engagement, financial support). And I¹d just be a little cautious in framing proposals that can be read like, let¹s replace some you guys with more of us; the draft says, > We are concerned at the over-representation of governments > in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this > should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this Full stop. Not sure how that binary would scan in Beijing, Moscow, Brasilia, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Riyadh, etc. but I suspect not so well. Maybe it¹d be better to blur the issue a little and make it not just about us, e.g. by proposing rough proportions per group we¹d think it better to shoot for...? I don¹t see why 40 is inherently inefficient and unaccountable if it¹s the right 40 and there are clear procedures and everyone shows up, in all senses. WGIG was 40 and it worked fine, and the government participants participated, at least in the F2F, and some did online too. But make a case that size matters and we should go to the wall on it and let¹s what people think. But we have a lot of disparate points to reach closure on quickly, and we¹re trying to do it on a list.. Cheers, BD PS: Might help keep conversations clear if when you reply you keep the From line of the person you¹re responding to. On 2/12/08 3:54 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the rationale for >> Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it¹s a >> non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder¹s wording on size and >> rotation. >> >> >> >> Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion below >> >> >> >> On the other hand, it would seem that some don¹t contribute much to the >> dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and >> political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so >> suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that >> we¹d hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively >> contribute would seek to be represented? >> >> >> >> This would be very sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" so that we can >> agree. >> >> >> >> We've been through this before, but I fail to understand why so many people >> decide in advance that you can't ask for what you want because other people >> may block it politically. That never seems to stop other stakeholders from >> asking for what they want. We have a duty to ourselves and to the public >> interest to ask for the right thing. If it gets blocked politically, then so >> be it. But at the very least it puts pressure on those playing political >> games with the MAG composition. >> >> >> >> There are important efficiency and accountability reasons to reduce the size >> of the MAG substantially. We should and must assert them. We lose nothing by >> doing so and may gain. >> >> >> >> On the issue of "technical community" representation, Ian noted, and the >> point was basically conceded or agreed by all, that these are >> representatives of current Internet administration bodies. It would be >> perfectly sufficient to have a representative of ICANN, IETF, and one RIR >> (not three -- they are all the same politically!!) via the NRO to cover >> these. If you want 6 of them (and thus a 30-person MAG instead of 15-20) >> then pick two from each category, making sure that, e.g., ICANN reps include >> SSAC and not just two staffers. ISPs should definitely be represented too, >> but clearly they are business interests as well as Internet administrators. >> But be aware that ISOC is the parent organization of IETF and virtually >> every major figure in ICANN and RIRs are members and supporters of ISOC, so >> don't talk as if adding ISOC to an ICANN-IETF-RIR panel is adding anything >> different rather than just padding the numbers. In many respects ISOC, as a >> nonprofit association, is more akin to civil society even though it >> consistently refuses to play with CS. >> >> >> >> Note the double standards one gets into. We are told that we "must" have 20 >> governments because there are regional differences among them, and >> political/cultural/economic differences within the regions. Well, that's >> true also of ISPs, ISOC, civil society, and so on. We can and we must >> challenge this, even if the governments have the raw power to not listen to >> it. >> >> >> >> Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics. I¹m glad >> Parminder touched them, but I¹m not sure a series of questions on each is >> the most effective approach. I wonder whether it¹d be possible for us to >> positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG >> (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) >> >> >> >> and IGP, in its early paper "Building an IG Forum" for the first >> consultation. Agree with Bill's comments here. >> >> >> >> I think we should also insist that in creating workshops and plenaries for >> the annual Forum, the Secretariat and MAG must ensure diversity of >> viewpoints and air fully the real policy debates that are going on. No more >> workshops full of content regulation advocates telling each other how right >> they are to censor the Internet, while next door there are a bunch of free >> expression advocates telling each other how right they are to oppose it. >> That's useless. The critical internet resources panel I was on in Rio was >> poorly balanced; that should not happen again. >> >> -------------- 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 Feb 12 11:09:49 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:09:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet Governance Message-ID: ICANN workshop on the IGF (yesterday), transcript available from Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the Delhi IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it might find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8. I think another pressing issue will be critical physical infrastructure (another cable break, SE Asia last year, Western Asia etc this). Last year there was a bit of discussion about what was meant by CIR, perhaps for Delhi we could split CIR as two main themes, one addressing physical resources (cable, power etc) and the other DNS and ICANN (unique identifiers)? I suggested on the MAG list last week it might be possible to merge ICTs and the environment in with physical resources (fits with data centers?), but this contribution for the next consultation from IISD is well worth a look suggesting sustainable development be adopted as new theme for the Delhi meeting, and ICT and environment would be part of that theme. Would need to make sure that discussions are tied to notions of Internet Governance, and not just workshops and main sessions held because they happen to be interesting and generally about the Internet. Thoughts? Adam Rio opening session: >>NAOYUKI AKIKUSA: Mr. Chairman and all the distinguished >>participants, thank you for the opportunity to visit Rio de >>Janeiro. I appreciate the warm welcome from our Brazilian host. I >>have been working with various business organizations on policy >>development. Currently, I am serving as the chairman of the Global >>Information Infrastructure Commission, GIIC. The GIIC's mission is >>to provide private sector leadership to foster investment in the >>ICT and Internet capability. The GIIC has actively participated in >>many meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society, the >>WSIS, and also the -- in the discussion at the IGF. And holding >>workshop on access tomorrow morning. At GIIC annual meeting in >>Tokyo next April, and we hope to discuss further the issue of >>Internet governance and related issues. Today I want to talk about >>two topics. One is environment and Internet -- and ICT. Second one >>is corporate management and the Internet. Speaking of the >>environment and ICT, considering the sustainability of economic >>development, empowered by the Internet. The Internet is becoming a >>more important factor. However, we have most -- we have not >>sufficiently discussed environmental impact of the use of such >>technology. The Internet and ICT can reduce the burden of the >>environment. For example, digitalization of mechanical components >>greatly improve their efficiencies. For example, automotive >>controls and medical equipment like CT, and also teleconference >>reduces physical movement of persons and goods. Energy management >>system improves power efficiency in businesses and homes in the >>public sector. However, the energy consumption in the world ICT >>use -- sorry, in the world IC uses is not so small. We need to >>think about more efficient use of our resources. The ICT uses >>account for 2% of CO2 consumption worldwide. Some studies show that >>data centers consume 23% of that amount. Half of -- the air >>conditioning for cooling consumes half of the power in the >>datacenter. I would like to show some example. Replacing ten racks >>of servers by one blade server can annually reduce CO2 emissions by >>the equivalent amount of planting 200 trees. The ISP in our >>company, Fujitsu Group, is now using 25% of its mail servers to >>combat Spam. And 90% of e-mail coming to Fujitsu are Spam. I think >>probably the communication carrier use a huge amount of energy and >>cost for Spam. We are facing many environmental matters to be >>solved and to discuss in the future. For the healthy development of >>the global Internet, I think we should pay more attention to >>assessing this wasted energy and cost. Secondly, I would like to >>touch upon the corporate management and the Internet. The Internet >>is a crucial part of the business infrastructure because it >>circulates everywhere like the air. Companies like Fujitsu heavily >>depend on the Internet application systems, from R&D, office work, >>training and education. If Internet doesn't work, it means we >>cannot continue our business operation. However, many in top >>management site does not notice this, and think of the Internet as >>a given infrastructure to utilize. Only a few recognize Internet >>safety as a critical management issue. To keep secure and stable >>Internet operation is essential part of to corporate management. >>And a company executive should recognize the Internet as one of the >>most important management issues and coincidentally add something >>like a subset of worldwide Internet governance. Finally, the >>private sector represented only 13% of all at the IGF in Athens. >>The important thing for the private sector should be to participate >>more in the IGF and contribute to its processes. Thank you very >>much [ Applause ] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 11:28:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:28:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC522@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Some good points, Bill Drake, responses below ________________________________ > We are concerned at the over-representation of governments > in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this > should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this Full stop. Not sure how that binary would scan in Beijing, Moscow, Brasilia, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Riyadh, etc. but I suspect not so well. Agreed, but this is a wording problem. That's why I think the argument should hinge less on how many of each group there are, but on a general case for reducing the size of the MAG. So we could say, "make the MAG 20 people with the following proportions." no need to single out any group as having "too many," I don't see why 40 is inherently inefficient and unaccountable if it's the right 40 and there are clear procedures and everyone shows up, in all senses. WGIG was 40 and it worked fine, and the government participants participated, at least in the F2F, and some did online too. But WGIG was not in the same position as MAG. MAG is supposed to "represent" the broader community and engage in continual interface with it; WGIG was a stand-alone body that was charged to produce a document on its own. WGIG was a one-shot creation; Mag is supposed to rotate and be continuous. -------------- 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 Tue Feb 12 11:38:39 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:38:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the Delhi > IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio > meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this > year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU > meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it might > find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8. I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than yet another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both A) something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF has utterly no authority to do anything about? Why is it global IG and what can UN IGF do about it? > I think another pressing issue will be critical physical > infrastructure (another cable break, SE Asia last year, Western Asia > etc this). Fine, but let's focus carefully on the global governance issues associated with physical infrastructure protection. One could make a case for new international institutions or regimes to protect cables, but national governments and private carriers have many incentives and opportunities to improve the reliability and redundancy without them. What can IGF do about it? Why is IGF needed? Again, I am opposing the concept of IGF as a pure talk shop that takes up every trendy issue of the day. > Last year there was a bit of discussion about what was meant by CIR, > perhaps for Delhi we could split CIR as two main themes, one > addressing physical resources (cable, power etc) and the other DNS > and ICANN (unique identifiers)? The split is good in that it keeps physical (layer 1) away from "real" CIR as established in the TA, which is layer 3. But please don't contribute to the verbal dilution of the CIR concept. If you want to take about layer 1, talk about physical infrastructure, don't confuse it with layer 3 CIR. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 11:43:55 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:43:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/12/08 5:09 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > ICANN workshop on the IGF (yesterday), transcript available from > > > Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the Delhi > IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio > Thoughts? Having exhaustively explored and resolved all the issues related to governance per se, I guess we might as well get it over with and change the name to the Internet and Society Forum. Or maybe drop the 'and' and really get it over with. Could solve the funding issues... BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 12 11:53:36 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:53:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <046CE1A7-72DA-4784-A7C7-3F2839F98A54@ras.eu.org> Le 12 févr. 08 à 16:58, William Drake a écrit : > I wouldn’t suggest not advocating something solely on the grounds > that it won’t be accepted, but I would suggest that political > viability ought to at least be part of the calculation when > deciding what it’s worth spending time and collective reputation on. Bill, these are two different ways of arguing for the same thing: self-censorship. Our collective reputation (as CS, generally speaking) should be based on our tenacity in asking for what we think is best for the public/ general interest. Not on asking for what can be easily obtained ("political viability"). Leave this to others.. Moreover, constantly asking for (what we think is) the right thing helps either to obtain it, or to demonstrate that other stakeholders either ignore these demands or explicitely counter them. And this is an achievement, too -- as we obviously are in a long term perspective:) in a previous message, you also said: > Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the > rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in > numbers, I suspect it’s a non-starter on political grounds and > support Parminder’s wording on size and rotation. On reducing the > number of government participants, on the hand, this is tough not > only because of the regional formulas etc but also just because of > the need for political buy-in, which obviously isn’t acute across > the board. On the other hand, it would seem that some don’t > contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not > translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it > be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction > in the context of overall rebalancing and that we’d hope that only > governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute > would seek to be represented? Or would that be viewed as unfair to > lurkers needed on diversity grounds, e.g. LDCs? Really unfair, we all know that LDCs would be the ones targeted. CS couldn't argue for this (that's where CS should be sensitive on its collective reputation!). Either we argue for 1 gov rep. for each of the 6 UN regions to downsize the MAG, or we don't spend too much energy on this, and we concentrate on equal size for all stakeholders. Even better: we state the concern (as in Parminder draft), and we suggest both of these acceptable alternatives, with a preference for an overall downsized MAG. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 12 12:10:59 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:10:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Le 12 févr. 08 à 17:38, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> >> Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the Delhi >> IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio >> meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this >> year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU >> meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it might >> find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8. > > I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than > yet > another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both A) > something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF has > utterly no authority to do anything about? No, it isn't more than this. And it will always be.. This year, ICT and environment is fashionable. Let's go for this, we wont be able to avoid this, so let's save our time and energy. They want ICT and environment, fine. But this has counterpart: we want physical infrastructure and we want DNS and other CI(Management)R. (and other issues, too:)) > Why is it global IG and what > can UN IGF do about it? A lot, actually, but maybe not what is expected by those who propose this theme. We should have things to say on ICT and environment AND health. Especially when in India and some other countries people are dying from taking wasted computers to pieces. Milton, you may well have here the opportunity to say ranlke many by your aversion to taxation rather than cynicism:)) More seriously, this could also be an opportunity to enlarge the CS components interested in IGF and global IG. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Feb 12 12:32:04 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:32:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet Message-ID: Hi folks, Jumping in on a couple points: 1) Linkage of IT, energy & environment is not a passing fad. There is a substantive connection which yeah coincidentally plays well on the international agenda this year. I can refer folks to my NSF keynote on the topic from a few years back if we wished to get pedantic, but can hear you all saying 'no thanks' even from here, so let's just move on. 2) I have not heard yet why exactly 15 or 20 is a better number than 40 for the functions MAG may be asked to fulfill, not just today but in future. A rebalancing should be asked for, and perhaps a more explicit recognition of the role of reps of IG institution. 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or pretty much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a listserv; maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's draft tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our collective views. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 02/12/08 12:10 PM >>> Le 12 févr. 08 à 17:38, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> >> Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the Delhi >> IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio >> meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this >> year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU >> meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it might >> find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8. > > I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than > yet > another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both A) > something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF has > utterly no authority to do anything about? No, it isn't more than this. And it will always be.. This year, ICT and environment is fashionable. Let's go for this, we wont be able to avoid this, so let's save our time and energy. They want ICT and environment, fine. But this has counterpart: we want physical infrastructure and we want DNS and other CI(Management)R. (and other issues, too:)) > Why is it global IG and what > can UN IGF do about it? A lot, actually, but maybe not what is expected by those who propose this theme. We should have things to say on ICT and environment AND health. Especially when in India and some other countries people are dying from taking wasted computers to pieces. Milton, you may well have here the opportunity to say ranlke many by your aversion to taxation rather than cynicism:)) More seriously, this could also be an opportunity to enlarge the CS components interested in IGF and global IG. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Feb 12 13:35:26 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:35:26 -0300 Subject: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on In-Reply-To: References: <20080211143258.GA15408@hserus.net> <987017.62114.qm@web34615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007a01c86cbf$9b6526b0$d22f7410$@net> <00a401c86cc4$9a06dcf0$ce1496d0$@net> Message-ID: Excellent information, Seiiti. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Seiiti Arata" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:11:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer School on Governance of the Internet > Hi all > > I work for Diplo and would like informally to complement the > information > below. > > Diplo does offer fellowships as part of its Internet governance > capacity > building programme (IGCBP). These fellowships are granted to our > Diplo > Alumni for the Summer School and also to other important initiatives > such as > ICANN Studienkreis (who happens to be also run under the leadership > of > Wolfgang). Other fellowships I can think of now are IGF Secretariat > and > Connect Africa (ITU), but there are several others. > > I will be happy to discuss new partnerships with the initiatives of > your > institutions - do write me off-list so we can exchange ideas. > > Because of the positive results and the impact of the IGCBP, we are > able to > run the fourth annual edition. Applications can be made at > http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/Activities/display.asp?Topic=Call > > For those of you interested to know more, check > http://www.diplomacy.edu/links/emerging_leaders - the Emerging > Leaders > publication illustrates the stories of some of the hundreds of people > who > are part of our Diplo Alumni community. > > Best, > Seiiti > > > On Feb 11, 2008 4:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Aaron, DIPLO has a lot of funding available. So they can offer, > and > > publicize, fellowships. > > > > > > > > A university in Germany – perhaps not as much? > > > > > > > > Perhaps the material can be posted online or some other e-learning > > measures can be worked out – they will work out cheaper, in both > the short > > and the long run than flying people to Germany for a summer's worth > of > > courses. > > > > > > > > AFNOG – held along with AFRINIC meetings – does have a > fellowships program > > that may be relevant to Internet issues, and possibly to some > internet > > governance issues though from a technical standpoint. I manage the > > fellowships for two similar conferences, but they are focused on > the asiapac > > and on south asia respectively, so there's a regional requirement > for > > fellows, besides the obvious background / qualification etc > requirements > > > > > > > > Not to mention the "fun" developing country residents who don't > have a > > previous history of foreign travel can have when trying to apply > for a > > visa. > > > > > > > > Of course, there is a very high incidence of fraudulent > applications at > > any visa post, so they're bound to do due diligence. And that can > result in > > situations where a process that can take minutes to apply + maybe a > couple > > of days to process for some people from developing countries can > easily > > become a long drawn out process for others. > > > > > > > > suresh > > > > > > > > *From:* Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2008 9:03 PM > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > > *Subject:* Re: Sponsor for Participation in the [governance] Summer > School > > on Governance of the Internet > > > > > > > > Suresh wrote > > > > "How would approaching an entire mailing list of people who, though > they > > know and respect Prof Kleinwachter, have no affiliation with this > course, > > or authority to award fellowships for it, assuming, of course, that > a > > fellowship program exists and that fellowships are being awarded?" > > > > A strategic and apt question. But then, one must understand that > it was > > due to the fact that no avenue was provided as to where to seek for > > sponsorship. In normal cases, hints are provided about scholarships > and > > applicants called upon to channel their demands. DIPLO excels at > this. > > > > The organizers of the excellent programme (perharps so bogged down > by > > curricula activities involved in such a programme) took this aspect > of > > sponsorship lightly. > > > > It is not late my very dear Suresh, just do provide the link where > > applications for scholarship could be fowarded. This can help in > setting > > up a data bank of some resources for the programme... for future > use, who > > knows. > > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 14:02:40 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:02:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080211055416.4BCC3A6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC519@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC51A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MM makes some good points regarding the kind of representation the so-called techie community brings to the MAG. I agree with these points. Techies (of the developer/nerd/hacker/bit-brushing kind and similar, I am writing right now from São Paulo's Campus Party) are members of one of the three interest groups (government, civil society, private sector), just like veterinarians, lawyers, economists and so on. Thus, let us drop once and for all the idea that techies constitute a fourth interest group. Regarding reduction in numbers, to keep the balance the number of gov reps would have to be reduced accordingly -- and this is the major hurdle here. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Milton L Mueller" To: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:54:15 -0500 Subject: RE: [governance] Reforming MAG > > > > > ________________________________ > > Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the > rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in > numbers, I suspect it's a non-starter on political grounds and > support > Parminder's wording on size and rotation. > > Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion below > > On the other hand, it would seem that some don't contribute > much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into > financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add > a > sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of > overall > rebalancing and that we'd hope that only governments that are > prepared > to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? > > This would be very sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" so > that we can agree. > > We've been through this before, but I fail to understand why so > many people decide in advance that you can't ask for what you want > because other people may block it politically. That never seems to > stop > other stakeholders from asking for what they want. We have a duty to > ourselves and to the public interest to ask for the right thing. If > it > gets blocked politically, then so be it. But at the very least it > puts > pressure on those playing political games with the MAG composition. > > There are important efficiency and accountability reasons to > reduce the size of the MAG substantially. We should and must assert > them. We lose nothing by doing so and may gain. > > On the issue of "technical community" representation, Ian noted, > and the point was basically conceded or agreed by all, that these are > representatives of current Internet administration bodies. It would > be > perfectly sufficient to have a representative of ICANN, IETF, and one > RIR (not three -- they are all the same politically!!) via the NRO to > cover these. If you want 6 of them (and thus a 30-person MAG instead > of > 15-20) then pick two from each category, making sure that, e.g., > ICANN > reps include SSAC and not just two staffers. ISPs should definitely > be > represented too, but clearly they are business interests as well as > Internet administrators. But be aware that ISOC is the parent > organization of IETF and virtually every major figure in ICANN and > RIRs > are members and supporters of ISOC, so don't talk as if adding ISOC > to > an ICANN-IETF-RIR panel is adding anything different rather than just > padding the numbers. In many respects ISOC, as a nonprofit > association, > is more akin to civil society even though it consistently refuses to > play with CS. > > Note the double standards one gets into. We are told that we > "must" have 20 governments because there are regional differences > among > them, and political/cultural/economic differences within the regions. > Well, that's true also of ISPs, ISOC, civil society, and so on. We > can > and we must challenge this, even if the governments have the raw > power > to not listen to it. > > Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics. > I'm glad Parminder touched them, but I'm not sure a series of > questions > on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it'd be > possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a > MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I > did, > and APC did more recently...) > > and IGP, in its early paper "Building an IG Forum" for the first > consultation. Agree with Bill's comments here. > > I think we should also insist that in creating workshops and > plenaries for the annual Forum, the Secretariat and MAG must ensure > diversity of viewpoints and air fully the real policy debates that > are > going on. No more workshops full of content regulation advocates > telling > each other how right they are to censor the Internet, while next door > there are a bunch of free expression advocates telling each other how > right they are to oppose it. That's useless. The critical internet > resources panel I was on in Rio was poorly balanced; that should not > happen again. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 14:10:21 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:10:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yes, MM, it seems this will happen over and over again at every new edition of the IGF... It is beginning to turn into a sad joke. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Milton L Mueller" To: , "Adam Peake" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:38:39 -0500 Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet Governance > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > > Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the > Delhi > > IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio > > meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this > > year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU > > meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it > might > > find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8. > > I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than > yet > another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both > A) > something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF > has > utterly no authority to do anything about? Why is it global IG and > what > can UN IGF do about it? > > > I think another pressing issue will be critical physical > > infrastructure (another cable break, SE Asia last year, Western > Asia > > etc this). > > Fine, but let's focus carefully on the global governance issues > associated with physical infrastructure protection. One could make a > case for new international institutions or regimes to protect cables, > but national governments and private carriers have many incentives > and > opportunities to improve the reliability and redundancy without them. > What can IGF do about it? Why is IGF needed? Again, I am opposing the > concept of IGF as a pure talk shop that takes up every trendy issue > of > the day. > > > Last year there was a bit of discussion about what was meant by > CIR, > > perhaps for Delhi we could split CIR as two main themes, one > > addressing physical resources (cable, power etc) and the other DNS > > and ICANN (unique identifiers)? > > The split is good in that it keeps physical (layer 1) away from > "real" > CIR as established in the TA, which is layer 3. But please don't > contribute to the verbal dilution of the CIR concept. If you want to > take about layer 1, talk about physical infrastructure, don't confuse > it > with layer 3 CIR. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 14:11:55 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:11:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fascinating how the chairman of a big corp (who BTW is at home in Tokyo and in Washington...) is so influential in certain circles... ;) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: William Drake To: "Peake, Adam" , Governance Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:43:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet > Hi, > > On 2/12/08 5:09 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > ICANN workshop on the IGF (yesterday), transcript available from > > > > > > Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the > Delhi > > IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio > > > Thoughts? > > Having exhaustively explored and resolved all the issues related to > governance per se, I guess we might as well get it over with and > change the > name to the Internet and Society Forum. Or maybe drop the 'and' and > really > get it over with. Could solve the funding issues... > > BD > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 14:36:49 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:36:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reforming MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B1F551.7080404@wzb.eu> Hi, I agree with Bill's suggestion below: > Maybe it’d be better to blur the issue a little and make it not just > about us, e.g. by proposing rough proportions per group we’d think it > better to shoot for...? The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal composition. As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is pragmatic. The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent and balance them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and exclusion. For example, should environmental effects become an important governance issue, how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder groups from the MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well. jeanette > On the particular issue of govt reps, I guess my point is that IGF > suffers from a low level of real commitment to the process from many > (attendance, political engagement, financial support). And I’d just be > a little cautious in framing proposals that can be read like, let’s > replace some you guys with more of us; the draft says, > >> We are concerned at the over-representation of governments >> in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this >> should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this > > Full stop. Not sure how that binary would scan in Beijing, Moscow, > Brasilia, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Riyadh, etc. but I suspect not so well. > Maybe it’d be better to blur the issue a little and make it not just > about us, e.g. by proposing rough proportions per group we’d think it > better to shoot for...? > > I don’t see why 40 is inherently inefficient and unaccountable if it’s > the right 40 and there are clear procedures and everyone shows up, in > all senses. WGIG was 40 and it worked fine, and the government > participants participated, at least in the F2F, and some did online too. > But make a case that size matters and we should go to the wall on it > and let’s what people think. But we have a lot of disparate points to > reach closure on quickly, and we’re trying to do it on a list.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > PS: Might help keep conversations clear if when you reply you keep the > From line of the person you’re responding to. > > > > On 2/12/08 3:54 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > /Number and Composition of MAG Members./ While I understand > the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical > reduction in numbers, I suspect it’s a non-starter on political > grounds and support Parminder’s wording on size and rotation. > > > > Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion below > > > > On the other hand, it would seem that some don’t contribute > much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated > into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be > sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction > in the context of overall rebalancing and that we’d hope that > only governments that are prepared to attend and actively > contribute would seek to be represented? > > > > This would be very sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" > so that we can agree. > > > > We've been through this before, but I fail to understand why so > many people decide in advance that you can't ask for what you > want because other people may block it politically. That never > seems to stop other stakeholders from asking for what they want. > We have a duty to ourselves and to the public interest to ask > for the right thing. If it gets blocked politically, then so be > it. But at the very least it puts pressure on those playing > political games with the MAG composition. > > > > There are important efficiency and accountability reasons to > reduce the size of the MAG substantially. We should and must > assert them. We lose nothing by doing so and may gain. > > > > On the issue of "technical community" representation, Ian > noted, and the point was basically conceded or agreed by all, > that these are representatives of current Internet > administration bodies. It would be perfectly sufficient to have > a representative of ICANN, IETF, and one RIR (not three -- they > are all the same politically!!) via the NRO to cover these. If > you want 6 of them (and thus a 30-person MAG instead of 15-20) > then pick two from each category, making sure that, e.g., ICANN > reps include SSAC and not just two staffers. ISPs should > definitely be represented too, but clearly they are business > interests as well as Internet administrators. But be aware that > ISOC is the parent organization of IETF and virtually every > major figure in ICANN and RIRs are members and supporters of > ISOC, so don't talk as if adding ISOC to an ICANN-IETF-RIR > panel is adding anything different rather than just padding the > numbers. In many respects ISOC, as a nonprofit association, is > more akin to civil society even though it consistently refuses > to play with CS. > > > > Note the double standards one gets into. We are told that we > "must" have 20 governments because there are regional > differences among them, and political/cultural/economic > differences within the regions. Well, that's true also of ISPs, > ISOC, civil society, and so on. We can and we must challenge > this, even if the governments have the raw power to not listen > to it. > > > > /Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. /To me these are key topics. > I’m glad Parminder touched them, but I’m not sure a series of > questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder > whether it’d be possible for us to positively state the case > for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we > once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) > > > > and IGP, in its early paper "Building an IG Forum" for the > first consultation. Agree with Bill's comments here. > > > > I think we should also insist that in creating workshops and > plenaries for the annual Forum, the Secretariat and MAG must > ensure diversity of viewpoints and air fully the real policy > debates that are going on. No more workshops full of content > regulation advocates telling each other how right they are to > censor the Internet, while next door there are a bunch of free > expression advocates telling each other how right they are to > oppose it. That's useless. The critical internet resources > panel I was on in Rio was poorly balanced; that should not > happen again. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Feb 12 18:30:00 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:30:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080212065408.F3558E19E0@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080212065408.F3558E19E0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 12/02/2008, at 3:53 PM, Parminder wrote: > I am willing to consider a separate > category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG > institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally > divided among > three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and > other > members response to this proposal. This can be justified if they are equated to the intergovernmental "observers" (whom as the latest MAG discussion thread document indicates do rather more than observe). Since the TA sometimes talks of intergovernmental organisations as a fourth stakeholder group, but at other times talks of "international organisations" (which are clearly intended to refer to other IG institutions), there is merit in treating the two groups the same. The implications of this are that the IG institutional members could be excluded from civil society's quota of MAG members, which would automatically mean a larger number for traditional non-technical civil society. Any IG institution that can demonstrate its interest would be able to send a representative to the meetings without specific limit of number, but subject to the discretion of the Chair, as is the case for intergovernmental representatives at present. But if we did that there would also be merit in, as Milton says, reducing the fixed stakeholder positions so that there would be closer to 40 all together, including observers and advisers. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Feb 12 20:31:50 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC523@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080213013150.GE30960@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [12/02/08 11:38 -0500]: >I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than yet >another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both A) >something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF has >utterly no authority to do anything about? Why is it global IG and what >can UN IGF do about it? Because it is much more fundamental than petty wrangling about control of ICANN? And actually affects real people, real users, to a far larger extent? >Fine, but let's focus carefully on the global governance issues >associated with physical infrastructure protection. One could make a >case for new international institutions or regimes to protect cables, >but national governments and private carriers have many incentives and This is actually one of those multi stakeholder things for which you do need a treaty organization or two involved as well. Cable companies, yes - but most of the cable now seems owned by just two companies in India (Tata and Reliance), neither of which are particularly noted for corporate governance or ethics - especially not Reliance. You may not want what you're asking for. >What can IGF do about it? Why is IGF needed? Again, I am opposing the >concept of IGF as a pure talk shop that takes up every trendy issue of >the day. And I am opposing the concept of IGF being subverted into an exclusive sandlot for the same petty ICANN politics that have pervaded just about every other IG related forum for the past few years now. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 00:14:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:44:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080213051437.91581A6CD5@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Parminder, > > I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really > understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've > strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a > personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that > we are talking past each other. > > so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will > just state: > > 1) I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th > stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it). McTim We are not asking so much for reducing or removing anyone, but for clarity of 'naming', and this is not merely an empty semantic exercise but with a good purpose as we have argued. (in the last part of this email I show how you yourself use these terms in an unclear manner, but in manner of deriving a strategic 'legitimising' advantage) And if you think it is a useless exercise to consider the matter of technical community representation it may be of some significance to note that this discussion is also going on within the MAG (pl see the details of MAG elist deliberations at http://intgovforum.org/AGD/AG_Discussion_Thread.pdf ). The discussion also goes into examining the meaning of this term. If MAG can discuss this issue, IGC as a CS deliberation and advocacy group has even better reasons to discuss it. Avoiding these discussion serves the status quo, which is as political a stance as persisting with them. > 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder > group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). Have you heard the laughter when they hear about some CS group's fantasy of completely ungoverned and unregulated Internet. Since when has CS started to be mindful of being laughed at. Pl give some more cogent arguments. > 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" > (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't > they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, > but the IGF certainly needs them. I am interested to know whose term is it, and what it is supposed to mean. 'Who needs whom' is a vocabulary of power, and I don't want to engage with it. Though it throws subtle suggestions about whose side one may be on. On the other hand I do not know how you get this impression of such great power of these institutions - don't forget governments are still by far the most powerful group. Do you have any idea what US gov can do in day to ICANN? Now, if they don't do it, this is because of existence of some intricate network of soft powers. We have to be strategic, but CS in its submissions will be as little afraid of alienating government (US gov, for instance) as the internet governing establishment. > If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start > approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community. I am very conscious of the level of cooperation given by ICANN plus to any process other than that which is controlled by it. And if they have at all participated, then under what pressure. The mere inclusion of CIRs as a discussion agenda is a recent example. BTW, thanks for advising IGC on behalf of the internet community. Here again I am at a loss to know if this 'int community' you refer is the user community (in which case, I do not understand what cooperation do you speak of) or the 'internet tech community' (as per your definition yesterday) in which case why do you keep using the term inter-changeably even when you had clarified that Internet community now includes all internet users and 'internet tech community' is described by you as the set of organizations listed by you. Do you not think they are very very different groups. Doesn't the use of the term internet community interchangeably with the set of these organizations cause huge problems. What is the purpose for persisting with this confusion, when it can be avoiding by some means we are suggesting here. Does this 'confusion' not give some strategic advantage to some sections/ groups? So once again, to ask a specific question, pl clarify what do you mean by the ' the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community'. I have tried to make the questions as comprehensible as possible. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Parminder, > > I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really > understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've > strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a > personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that > we are talking past each other. > > so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will > just state: > > 1) I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th > stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it). > > 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder > group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). > > 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" > (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't > they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, > but the IGF certainly needs them. > > If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start > approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community. > > /McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 00:14:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:44:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080213051522.32053A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> Bill On others things a bit later, but I wanted to clarify one point. >Listservs. We've had this parallel thread but the issue's not mentioned in the draft statement. Wouldn't it have more oomph if we did >it here rather than just as an informal 'sense of the caucus' conveyed by Adam and Jeanette to the mAG? It seems that there's >support for two lists, subject to Adam's proviso, Pl see the opening part of the draft statement. >>starts) >>We appreciate the transparency measures.... (here we can mention our appreciation for the new measures, as well >>as our suggestions how best to take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) The discussion being carried out under the thread 'communicating with our peers' will provide us the substance for this part. It is meant to be included in the opening part of the statement. Parminder _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:55 PM To: Singh, Parminder; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Hi, A few observations in relation to Parminder's promising draft statement and related matters. Drafting Process. This has been said a number of times by various people since the WSIS days but again, it really would be a lot easier to work out consensus on draft texts using a wiki. It's pretty labor intensive trying to dig through list traffic in order to keep straight multiple conversations on different points in the text and figure out the state of play on each, particularly when all messages have the same heading. Maybe it won't be possible in this case with the consultation being soon, but down the road wouldn't it make sense to put one up linked to whichever website we want to use going forward, Adam's old one www.net-gov.org or Avri's newer one www.igcaucus.org? (Also would be nice consolidate all docs at whichever, many caucus statements etc are at neither---would need a little WG to do this stuff I guess). Document Format and Distribution. We have often made statements of 1-2 pages covering multiple points and just read them out, and inevitably some of those points fail to resonate and remain focal points of the conversation as listeners' attention wanders etc. Might not it make sense to a) have topical headers for each point or cluster of points, b) in making the statement, signal the chair that we would particularly welcome follow-on discussion on xyz so he explicitly puts it to the floor, and c) put a big stack of hard copies at the back of the room next to the inevitable ISOC/ICC snazzily formatted contributions? Number and Composition of MAG Members. While I understand the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it's a non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder's wording on size and rotation. On reducing the number of government participants, on the hand, this is tough not only because of the regional formulas etc but also just because of the need for political buy-in, which obviously isn't acute across the board. On the other hand, it would seem that some don't contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that we'd hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? Or would that be viewed as unfair to lurkers needed on diversity grounds, e.g. LDCs? In a similar vein (I guess this goes to both selection and rotation), would it be sensible to suggest a no empty seats sort of rule? Empanelling and retaining people that are not in a position to or just don't come in order to have diversity on the masthead seems like a wasted opportunity. Technical and Administrative Community. We've had this debate on and off since WGIG, and while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder's draft (which has never been particularly well received by anyone other than a few developing country governments), arguably, that ship set sail some time ago. The decision was made to (over) include them, albeit sans explicit labeling, so to now argue that they removed even if only as an implicit category is a rather divisive proposition, and one on which we'd be unlikely to get consensus or prevail. So do we want to go back and restart the argument, which would probably not play out in a reasoned manner, invites broader ontological debates (what is CS, what is the public interest...), and could distract attention from other issues? At this point I'm inclined to support Adam's view, > My problem with the technical community isn't > that they are represented, but there are too > many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from > private sector and civil society respectively. > And I think people generally recognize a close > alignment between the private sector and > technical community (it is certainly apparent > inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a > rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech > community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim Co-chairs. Agree with the point but think the pararaph could be more concise. Wouldn't hurt to note that on this we agree with PS & T&A. Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics. I'm glad Parminder touched them, but I'm not sure a series of questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it'd be possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) Listservs. We've had this parallel thread but the issue's not mentioned in the draft statement. Wouldn't it have more oomph if we did it here rather than just as an informal 'sense of the caucus' conveyed by Adam and Jeanette to the mAG? It seems that there's support for two lists, subject to Adam's proviso, > Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the > closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about > this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion > going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some > form). If the closed list were used to excess then it should be > obvious. I understand Jeremy's desire regard the third inclusive list but just don't see mAG people, particularly governmentals, doing this. Cheers, Bill On 2/11/08 6:53 AM, "Parminder" wrote: (starts) We appreciate the transparency measures.... (here we can mention our appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. - First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG', instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this body. - The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of them should be rotated every year. - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, civil society, and business sector. - On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection. - We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the present lopsidedness of the MAG. - Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. - We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further explore the implications of this criterion. - All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. - The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. - We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for the 2009 meeting onwards. With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of formalization of these by the MAG. IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF. We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national levels. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. (Closing thank you stuff .) (ends) -------------- 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 Feb 13 02:31:46 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:31:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dewd, On Feb 13, 2008 8:14 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > We are not asking so much for reducing or removing anyone, but for clarity > of 'naming', and this is not merely an empty semantic exercise but with a > good purpose as we have argued. (in the last part of this email I show how > you yourself use these terms in an unclear manner, but in manner of deriving > a strategic 'legitimising' advantage) I am using other people terms. I don't know whose terms they are or where they came from (other than the opinion I offered yesterday). I don't speak for anyone other than myself, and you (or anyone else) telling me that I am using certain terminology to try to gain a "legitimising advantage" is complete and utter bollocks. > > And if you think it is a useless exercise to consider the matter of > technical community representation it may be of some significance to note > that this discussion is also going on within the MAG (pl see the details of > MAG elist deliberations at > http://intgovforum.org/AGD/AG_Discussion_Thread.pdf ). Fine, I will read it... OH, LOOK (Writer E) . . 5. Writer F's post, and Writer J's echo, though bothers me a lot. By reverting to the static UN document written in Tunis, I sense that they deny the possibility of a 4th stakeholder group which I characterize (roughly, I admit) as the "technical community." Writer F, I do not know if I understand your position accurately, but my current understanding prompts a reaction so strong that I will put it in capital letters (without the customary "yelling" implication): ANY ATTEMPT TO DENY THAT THE TECHNICAL INTERNET COMUNITY IS NOT AT LEAST AN EQUAL STAKEHOLDER IN THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS. (Writer M) "While the debate is interesting, I think we are making more of this stakeholder issue than is necessary. Now that we have been reminded of Paragraph 33 of the WGIG report, there should no longer be any argument that the internet technical community must be represented in the AG. (Markus Kummer) . . . "The academic and technical communities Several comments recalled the history and Writer H reminded us of the last phase of the negotiations ahead of the Tunis Summit. I would like to echo these comments. In WSIS-I, they were not identified as stakeholder. The academic and technical communities (i.e. the institutions that developed and run the Internet) affirmed themselves in between the two phases of the Summit, in particular during the WGIG open consultations. They made the point that many of them are not-for-profit institutions, with the objective of working for the public good, and that therefore they are distinct from the private sector." Since MK uses the term "technical community" I think I am in good company. Is he also trying to "legitimise advantage"? The discussion also > goes into examining the meaning of this term. If MAG can discuss this issue, > IGC as a CS deliberation and advocacy group has even better reasons to > discuss it. Avoiding these discussion serves the status quo, which is as > political a stance as persisting with them. > > > 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder > > group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us). > > Have you heard the laughter when they hear about some CS group's fantasy of > completely ungoverned and unregulated Internet. Since when has CS started to > be mindful of being laughed at. Pl give some more cogent arguments. > See "F"s all caps re: mockery. I have rec'd several off list messages re: removal of 4th stakeholder group, which is what i based my "laughing" comment on, to wit: "unbelievable" "This all verges on the inane." > > 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community" > > (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't > > they just "take their ball and go home". They don't need the IGF/IGC, > > but the IGF certainly needs them. > > I am interested to know whose term is it, and what it is supposed to mean. > 'Who needs whom' is a vocabulary of power, and I don't want to engage with > it. Though it throws subtle suggestions about whose side one may be on. I am on the "side" of spreading the edge of the network, especially in Africa, where I live. In my experience, it's the Internet technical community (ISOC/NSRC/AfNOG/AfTLD/AfriNIC, et. al) that does this better than any other CS/Gov't folk. Of course, it's the private sector that puts in the cash and builds out the networks. On > the other hand I do not know how you get this impression of such great power > of these institutions - don't forget governments are still by far the most > powerful group. Do you have any idea what US gov can do in day to ICANN? I am not attributing power to these organisations, you are (I didn't use the word first in this thread, you did). Here is what you don't seem to understand. We are, in this thread talking about the makeup of a group that may in future make decisions about agenda, logistics, etc about the IGF, which AFAIK, has no decision making "power". Meanwhile, there are other groups that you and most others on this list REFUSE to join, who are actively busy making IG policy decisions. I submit, (and not for the first time) that if anyone on this list would like to have any real decision-making ability on these issues, you MUST (and that is in the IETF usage of the word) join the bottom-up CS processes that are completely open, transparent and effective in promoting the public interest in Internet policy. > Now, if they don't do it, this is because of existence of some intricate > network of soft powers. We have to be strategic, but CS in its submissions > will be as little afraid of alienating government (US gov, for instance) as > the internet governing establishment. > > > If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start > > approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community. > > I am very conscious of the level of cooperation given by ICANN plus to any > process other than that which is controlled by it. And if they have at all > participated, then under what pressure. IMHO, you see this completely backwards. I don't think that ICANN/ISOC/NRO/I* feel any "pressure" at all. From what i see them doing on EC (which I have listed briefly in previous posts), they are doing this as an opportunity to bring more folk in to participate in the bottom of the bottom up processes, to educate folk on how to get involved, etc. The mere inclusion of CIRs as a > discussion agenda is a recent example. BTW, thanks for advising IGC on > behalf of the internet community. Always glad to help, but as always, i speak for myself, and only give my opinions. > > Here again I am at a loss to know if this 'int community' you refer is the > user community (in which case, I do not understand what cooperation do you > speak of) or the 'internet tech community' (as per your definition > yesterday) in which case why do you keep using the term inter-changeably > even when you had clarified that Internet community now includes all > internet users and 'internet tech community' is described by you as the set > of organizations listed by you. Do you not think they are very very > different groups. Doesn't the use of the term internet community > interchangeably with the set of these organizations cause huge problems. huge, only in the manner of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" > What is the purpose for persisting with this confusion, when it can be > avoiding by some means we are suggesting here. Does this 'confusion' not > give some strategic advantage to some sections/ groups? If this is the case, then let's put in the draft some text lambasting MK for his use of the term! > > So once again, to ask a specific question, pl clarify what do you mean by > the ' the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community'. Look in the archives, with the keywords, "EC, McTim, ITU, ICANN, NRO, continuing cooperation". You will find tha mail where I gave a short list of examples (I recall not getting any feedback from that mail tho, which is curious). Perhaps the list didn't get it, in which case, I am quoting it in it's entirety below my sig. I think I've had my say on this thread, so to post further on this topic would be pointless in terms of advancing the discussion. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim On Nov 18, 2007 9:46 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > And where is this "enhanced cooperation" program? It's a process, not a program: 71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. As Wolfie said on this list: "In Meissen at the end of the Summer School on Internet Governance, we developed recently a formula for enhanced cooperation (Sigma EC3) which means that "enhanced cooperation" as "undefined" in the Tunis Agenda can be seen as a bottom up management process where elements of enhanced communication among players, enhanced coordination among instiutions and enhanced informal and formal cooperation among involved institutions are creatively interlinked. New forms like joint committees, liaisons, dynamic coalitions are emerging on a multistakeholder basis. The only thing which is still underdeveloped is the intergovernmental component of EC3" So it's not an entity with a secretariat, meetings, travel, etc. I see the process in many places actually, it is happening, it's increasing, and it's helpful. Here are some examples from places familiar to me: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/35.html So the ITU is enhancing cooperation with ICANN http://nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html http://nro.net/governance/index.html http://nro.net/governance/itu-exhibition-info.html The NRO is is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU and the many thousands of other organisations that are interested in numbering. http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-15nov07.htm http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-14nov07.htm ICANN is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU, the AU, the NRO, etc, etc. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071114pr_fellowship.shtml http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071112pr_ampassadors.shtml ISOC does liaison work with all of the above (plus others via new Regional Bureaus), plus reaches out to bring folk to IETF/IGF meetings that otherwise wouldn't (be able to) go. Giganet is part of it, according to this: http://www.igloo.org/giganet "(4) facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society)." and this: http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=835). "Since then, the discussion within the academic community has proposed to initiate an independent academic network for Internet Governance research. Such a network, according to Kleinwächter and Ang, should not be a single "coordinated project" but a platform for "enhanced communication" both among researchers themselves and between the academic community and non-academic stakeholder groups to encourage multiple research projects. Ralf Bendrath from the University of Bremen presented a paper where he outlined key elements for such a new network, including proposals for procedures, structures and substance, membership criteria and objectives. " Not to mention all these other sites/orgs that are new or newly speaking to each other. http://www.wsis-gov.org/igf-sites.html >Can we participate to it? Of course, but if one is determined that it doesn't exist, then participation will be more problematic I think. >We all know the answer. I submit that you only think you know the answer, not being rude, but it's very obvious to me that's EC is in the milieu, not a place/building/conference/separate program. If you are looking for some top down thing from the UN SG, well I doubt you will get it. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 13 04:01:20 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:01:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Reconstituting MAG References: <20080213051437.91581A6CD5@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84259CF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is another idea which could be taken into consideration discussing the future of MAG: Among the key conceptual principles of CS are, inter alia, multistakeholder, bottom up PDP, end-to-end, openess and transparency. But, as said in previous mails, the meaning of these principles is not yet really understood and also vague developed (both from an practical and theoretical point of view). The present MAG approach follows more or less the traditional (hierarchical) "diplomatic architecture" with a "group" (representing various constitutencies and stakeholders) at the top. Why we shuld not change this architcture and organize the IGF (and its administation/management/planning etc.) in a way which is closer to the network architecture of the Net? In such a model MAG would be much mire a "coordinator" than a "decider" and MAG members would function like "root servers", answering queries and pointing to the right end address, the millions of Internet users (the sovereign of the cyberspace). We should not forget, the IGF was not created to have a new "playing ground" for diplomats and political activists but as a platform to serve first of all the 1st and 2nd (and hopefully soon the 3rd) billiion of Internet users helping them to manage the challenges and problems coming along when the Internet penetrates their daily lifes. And while you have to have (for technical reasons) a certain limit of root servers in the legacy root, you can have much more with the Anycast protocol. Insofar, it make sense practically to have a smaller MAG at the root level, but this does not mean, that you "exclude" others. Furthermore, national (regional) IGFs could be seen as "domains", playing a role like ccTLD and gTLD registries in the Internet Architecture. With other words, we conceptualize and understand MAG not as a centralized decision making body but as something like a database of all the variuos regional and national IGFs (like IANA), securing that the joint IGF-protocol is respected when individual, specific local policies and activities are developed. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 13 04:18:22 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:18:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84259CF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080213051437.91581A6CD5@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84259CF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <76120BED-1B10-45A7-B61B-3309FBDF82BF@ras.eu.org> Wolfgang, There's something missing in your model below: the IGF's ICANN:) Meryem Le 13 févr. 08 à 10:01, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > Here is another idea which could be taken into consideration > discussing the future of MAG: > > Among the key conceptual principles of CS are, inter alia, > multistakeholder, bottom up PDP, end-to-end, openess and > transparency. But, as said in previous mails, the meaning of these > principles is not yet really understood and also vague developed > (both from an practical and theoretical point of view). > > The present MAG approach follows more or less the traditional > (hierarchical) "diplomatic architecture" with a > "group" (representing various constitutencies and stakeholders) at > the top. Why we shuld not change this architcture and organize the > IGF (and its administation/management/planning etc.) in a way which > is closer to the network architecture of the Net? > > In such a model MAG would be much mire a "coordinator" than a > "decider" and MAG members would function like "root servers", > answering queries and pointing to the right end address, the > millions of Internet users (the sovereign of the cyberspace). We > should not forget, the IGF was not created to have a new "playing > ground" for diplomats and political activists but as a platform to > serve first of all the 1st and 2nd (and hopefully soon the 3rd) > billiion of Internet users helping them to manage the challenges > and problems coming along when the Internet penetrates their daily > lifes. > > And while you have to have (for technical reasons) a certain limit > of root servers in the legacy root, you can have much more with the > Anycast protocol. Insofar, it make sense practically to have a > smaller MAG at the root level, but this does not mean, that you > "exclude" others. Furthermore, national (regional) IGFs could be > seen as "domains", playing a role like ccTLD and gTLD registries in > the Internet Architecture. > > With other words, we conceptualize and understand MAG not as a > centralized decision making body but as something like a database > of all the variuos regional and national IGFs (like IANA), securing > that the joint IGF-protocol is respected when individual, specific > local policies and activities are developed. > > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 13 04:30:58 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:30:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 13/02/2008, at 4:31 PM, McTim wrote: > I submit, (and not for the first time) that if anyone on this list > would like to have any real decision-making ability on these issues, > you MUST (and that is in the IETF usage of the word) join the > bottom-up CS processes that are completely open, transparent and > effective in promoting the public interest in Internet policy. As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to gain any status within the organisation. Whilst in theory it is open to all, by its own admission, the IETF is a meritocracy; and merit is judged on the basis of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP networking. Public policy experience counts for very little. Secondly, it notoriously maintains the fiction that it is engaged in a purely technical exercise, and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on policy questions. The example that I always roll out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on Wiretapping (basically deciding that the IETF would not facilitate the interception of data by LEAs in the design of its protocols). Whilst I agree with the outcome in that case, the process by which it was reached, which excluded governmental and broader civil society input, cannot stand in the post-WSIS era because governments will (understandably) regard it as having zero legitimacy. One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through its own recommendations. This also ties back into the IGP's vision of the IGF's role vis-a-vis ICANN. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 13 04:38:39 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:38:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20080213093839.GA4674@hserus.net> Jeremy Malcolm [13/02/08 18:30 +0900]: > of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP networking. Public policy > experience counts for very little. You cant have th cake and eat it too. > out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on Wiretapping (basically deciding that > the IETF would not facilitate the interception of data by LEAs in the > design of its protocols). That's what you call a code of ethics. Not a public policy decision > Whilst I agree with the outcome in that case, the process by which it was > reached, which excluded governmental and broader civil society input, Jeremy, pretty soon you'll start requiring civil society input and governmental input for oh, pledges to stop smoking, maybe? IETF people decide what they wont do. That's called freedom of choice. So, is civ soc against that? suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 13 04:45:42 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:45:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or pretty > much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a listserv; > maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's draft > tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our collective > views. Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two weeks to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus statement to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the only option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that would have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, the system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage to vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the caucus decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical community should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? What do we expect to happen in consequence? This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of process and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in the larger environment. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 13 05:38:05 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20080213103805.GA28185@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:58PM +0900, Jeremy Malcolm wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to > gain any status within the organisation. Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to gain any status in a bar association... > merit is judged on the basis of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP > networking. Many IETFers are quite unfamiliar with Unix or with C. As for TCP/IP knowledge, well, since the IETF authors TCP/IP, yes, it is a prerequisite. > Public policy experience counts for very little. You raise here an important point: public input on technical standards. That is a difficult question since input on technical standards must be technically informed (to be meaningful and useful) and since there is no clear channel to gather this public opinion (unless you engage in ICANN bluff such as public fora that are never read and have exactly zero consequences; at least the IETF does not pretend it listens to you). This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for instance). > Secondly, it notoriously maintains the fiction that it is engaged in > a purely technical exercise, We agree that nothing is "purely technical". > and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on > policy questions. Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC. > The example that I always roll out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on > Wiretapping (basically deciding that the IETF would not facilitate > the interception of data by LEAs in the design of its protocols). Yes, very good document. > One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit > of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through > its own recommendations. Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all its standards...) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 13 05:43:16 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:13:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080213104342.32486E1B75@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the 'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear' reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB reps, than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view that we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with McTim's reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on this issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/ organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view that it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part of the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share this meaning of 'tech community'). The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear representation of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have done statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve important issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A week is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of luck to all of us :) Proposed para (starts) We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and the bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings. Representation of both these groups is important. We think that technical expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these sectors. On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that are in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not to be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' existing Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of around 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be divided among governments, civil society and the business sector. The representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of the MAG. (ends) This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given by Ian. "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which they should be selected. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Hi, > > On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or > pretty > > much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a > listserv; > > maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's > draft > > tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our > collective > > views. > > Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two > weeks > to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked > through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus > statement > to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no > consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the only > option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that > would > have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by > Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, the > system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage to > vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the caucus > decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who > refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical > community > should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the > "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? What > do > we expect to happen in consequence? > > This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of > process > and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in > Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in the > larger environment. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 06:32:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:02:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <20080106125653.CFB7C67943@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080213113241.6E0AFA6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. This is for a second (possible) caucus statement on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi. Some discussion on these issues has already started on this list in the 'reconstituting MAG' thread, and the 'ICANN Delhi, Workshop....' thread, and I will also pull together material from these. You may like to see APC's and Swiss govs contributions in this regard at http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html ,. (Also see Jeremy's contribution posted at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio ) All these makee some very important suggestions, which we can consider. I will list some important issues that may be highlighted (again very rough points). We should keep our intervention short and incisive and therefore raise only those issues which we see as really and centrally important. Instead of making two sections on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi, we will go by different issues, and mention both at the same place. (I will first put some text of appreciation for the hosts, and all facilities etc. Anyone with any specific suggestion can give inputs.) I think the main issue is about the huge number of workshops, and the thin attendance at the plenaries which puts the significance of IGF as ONE forum out of focus. We should suggest fewer and more structured workshops, with more vigorous merging of workshops. (the Swiss doc also suggests this.) But if this conflicts with the objective of many participants being allowed to use the IGF space for their workshops/ activities, we can use a format of two kinds of workshops. Type A which are strongly linked with the plenaries, and are few in number, and type B where are more open-ended, and about these MAG should be more liberal on the numbers (limited only by the logistics issue). (I don't want to put hierarchies here - but that's the only solution to reconcile opposing imperatives of a meaningful cohesiveness on one hand, and diversity and openness of the forum on the other.) I think some such separation of types of workshops was tried in Rio, or in the run up to it, but it didn't really work out. We can try it this time, with more time for preparation. In merging workshops, all kinds of diversities - geo-political, of special interests, of range of views, etc. - must be kept in mind. The number of workshop that any one group is able to hold will accordingly be limited (at least for type A). Within each of these workshops effort should be made to promote a meaningful dialogue and discussion across a range of views, and not just a futile interaction among the converted. The central part of the IGF, type A workshops and plenaries should be arranged tightly with common themes, with the purpose of meaningful outcomes. These outcomes should be oriented towards the IGF's mandate in terms of global Internet public policy issues. There should be no overlap between plenaries and these workshops, though some of these workshops can be held simultaneously. Working Groups should be set up to both prepare for these subject based plenaries and their associated workshops (working with their sponsors)and to synthesize their outcomes in a more focused and output oriented way, than just a chair's summary as at present along with disparate unconnected individual workshop report (see Swiss contribution, they ask for all these. Also see APC's contribution). What we are trying to do here is to super-impose an architecture of a more organized and output-oriented aspect of IGF over the existing open town hall architecture, without either aspect constraining the possibilities and functioning of the other aspect. In fact, the combined architecture is meant to allow the two aspects to be able to draw a lot of substance and strength from each other. This is to enable IGF to meet all the requirements of its Tunis Agenda. Dynamic coalition should also be better structured in the IGF's main processes (suggestions invited for this...) The preparations for the Delhi meet should start really early to give ourselves adequate time to make it a major improvement over Rio and Athens, each of which, we do acknowledge had their distinctive positive features. (the process part of the statements ends, I am separately posting some main themes related suggestions) Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi > > > >Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > >taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > >the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > >responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > >(and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > >for you to coordinate). > > > Thanks Jeremy for alerting us to this. > > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. Pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php. > > And another thread separately with regard to the issue of rotation of > members of the MAG. > > From the response we get on these two threads we will take a call if a > consensus statement for each of above can be proposed to the list. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 2:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? > > Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > (and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > for you to coordinate). > > All the best. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8746 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 06:57:30 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:27:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main themes Message-ID: <20080213115757.A9286E1661@smtp3.electricembers.net> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new themes during the May 2007 consultations. I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and other possible themes are welcome. 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main session themes. IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC contributions mention these) Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the current global policy institutional framework' proposed above (ends) Parminder _____________________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:02 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - process > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. This is for a second (possible) caucus statement on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi. Some discussion on these issues has already started on this list in the 'reconstituting MAG' thread, and the 'ICANN Delhi, Workshop....' thread, and I will also pull together material from these. You may like to see APC's and Swiss govs contributions in this regard at http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html ,. (Also see Jeremy's contribution posted at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio ) All these makee some very important suggestions, which we can consider. I will list some important issues that may be highlighted (again very rough points). We should keep our intervention short and incisive and therefore raise only those issues which we see as really and centrally important. Instead of making two sections on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi, we will go by different issues, and mention both at the same place. (I will first put some text of appreciation for the hosts, and all facilities etc. Anyone with any specific suggestion can give inputs.) I think the main issue is about the huge number of workshops, and the thin attendance at the plenaries which puts the significance of IGF as ONE forum out of focus. We should suggest fewer and more structured workshops, with more vigorous merging of workshops. (the Swiss doc also suggests this.) But if this conflicts with the objective of many participants being allowed to use the IGF space for their workshops/ activities, we can use a format of two kinds of workshops. Type A which are strongly linked with the plenaries, and are few in number, and type B where are more open-ended, and about these MAG should be more liberal on the numbers (limited only by the logistics issue). (I don't want to put hierarchies here - but that's the only solution to reconcile opposing imperatives of a meaningful cohesiveness on one hand, and diversity and openness of the forum on the other.) I think some such separation of types of workshops was tried in Rio, or in the run up to it, but it didn't really work out. We can try it this time, with more time for preparation. In merging workshops, all kinds of diversities - geo-political, of special interests, of range of views, etc. - must be kept in mind. The number of workshop that any one group is able to hold will accordingly be limited (at least for type A). Within each of these workshops effort should be made to promote a meaningful dialogue and discussion across a range of views, and not just a futile interaction among the converted. The central part of the IGF, type A workshops and plenaries should be arranged tightly with common themes, with the purpose of meaningful outcomes. These outcomes should be oriented towards the IGF's mandate in terms of global Internet public policy issues. There should be no overlap between plenaries and these workshops, though some of these workshops can be held simultaneously. Working Groups should be set up to both prepare for these subject based plenaries and their associated workshops (working with their sponsors)and to synthesize their outcomes in a more focused and output oriented way, than just a chair's summary as at present along with disparate unconnected individual workshop report (see Swiss contribution, they ask for all these. Also see APC's contribution). What we are trying to do here is to super-impose an architecture of a more organized and output-oriented aspect of IGF over the existing open town hall architecture, without either aspect constraining the possibilities and functioning of the other aspect. In fact, the combined architecture is meant to allow the two aspects to be able to draw a lot of substance and strength from each other. This is to enable IGF to meet all the requirements of its Tunis Agenda. Dynamic coalition should also be better structured in the IGF's main processes (suggestions invited for this...) The preparations for the Delhi meet should start really early to give ourselves adequate time to make it a major improvement over Rio and Athens, each of which, we do acknowledge had their distinctive positive features. (the process part of the statements ends, I am separately posting some main themes related suggestions) Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi > > > >Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > >taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > >the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > >responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > >(and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > >for you to coordinate). > > > Thanks Jeremy for alerting us to this. > > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. Pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php. > > And another thread separately with regard to the issue of rotation of > members of the MAG. > > From the response we get on these two threads we will take a call if a > consensus statement for each of above can be proposed to the list. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 2:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? > > Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > (and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > for you to coordinate). > > All the best. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 10050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Feb 13 07:31:41 2008 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:31:41 -0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: <200802131231.MAA21352@safat.kisr.edu.kw> --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by Adam Peake on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:55:16 +0900. > My problem with the technical community isn't > that they are represented, but there are too > many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from > private sector and civil society respectively. > And I think people generally recognize a close > alignment between the private sector and > technical community (it is certainly apparent > inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a > rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech > community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim > mentions represented (ISOC is to all intent and > purposes .ORG, why two standards community... > though a personal preference would be a couple of > RIRs...) With civil society increased by 3 or 4 > and private sector by 2 or 3. > > About the overall number, I think it will be > difficult to get below 40. And 40 is not ideal > but workable. > > Adam Thank you Adam for making a key point here. If we looked at the MAG work and the preparations for the IGF meetings including the work on the meetings program, we will find out that CS & private sector contributed far more than governments. This is why we would like to see first a rebalance rather than a rotation with increasing representaion of CS and private sector by the numbers you have mentioned. Regards, Qusai Al-ShattiAt 7:52 AM +0300 2/12/08, McTim wrote: > >hi, > > > >kudos for the draft. Comments inline: > > > agree: Parminder, thanks. > > snip > > > > >> > >> > >> - Its membership should be divided equally between governments, > >> civil society, and business sector. > >> > >> > > > >and the technical community > > > > > I agree -- more below > > > > > >> - On the issue of representation of technical community it is > >> important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per > >> political representation based on interests of, or representation of > >> different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's > >> presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary > >> expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from > >> the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as > >> undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise > >> provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the > >> three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at > >> the time of final selection. > >> > > > >I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that > >you (and some others on the list) seek. To get adequate > >representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those > >"slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say > >that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want; > > > >1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart) > >1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears) > >1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC) > >1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain) > >1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA) > >1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat F�ltstr�m) > >1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler) > > > >This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS > >"slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other > >NGOs working in this space. Is that enough for the "human rights, > >ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > >electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from > >our charter). > > > >Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I > >don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but > >they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical > >community folk). > > > I don't want to get into an argument about where > members of the technical community might drag > members from (FWIW I think most are private > sector oriented not civil society, being non > profit isn't relevant, however not easy to pigeon > hole), but for sure it will be from civil society > and private sector in some measure. So we likely > loose out. > > The advisory group isn't a creation of the Tunis > Agenda and referring to the early paragraphs as > strict rules for its design doesn't make sense. > The MAG, it's design, came from contributions to > the first series of consultations 2 years ago, > the multistakeholder advisory group + chair and > secretariat is the interpretation those > consultations put on the instruction to > "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau > to support the IGF, ensuring multistakeholder > participation." > > My problem with the technical community isn't > that they are represented, but there are too > many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from > private sector and civil society respectively. > And I think people generally recognize a close > alignment between the private sector and > technical community (it is certainly apparent > inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a > rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech > community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim > mentions represented (ISOC is to all intent and > purposes .ORG, why two standards community... > though a personal preference would be a couple of > RIRs...) With civil society increased by 3 or 4 > and private sector by 2 or 3. > > About the overall number, I think it will be > difficult to get below 40. And 40 is not ideal > but workable. > > 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 13 07:58:01 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:58:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47b2c9de.18068e0a.4c60.4e22SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I don't want to go around and around on the point, especially since the concerns I've raised are more political/procedural than substantive. But I do think that the issue of defining the stakeholders in question is more complex than your solution suggests; that a proper dissection of it would take more time and broader dialogue than is possible now; that the consensus for your approach is among a pretty small portion of the population reading this thread; and that this may do more to deepen divides than anything else. I hope I'm proven wrong on the last. In any event, I would suggest a different acronym than IABs, since one of them is the IAB, bit confusing. Cheers, Bill On 2/13/08 11:43 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Bill > > I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the > 'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear' > reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB reps, > than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view that > we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with McTim's > reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require > Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on this > issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's > observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose > below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/ > organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view that > it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original > draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part of > the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share this > meaning of 'tech community'). > > The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear representation > of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. > > As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have done > statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve important > issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A week > is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a > day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this > important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of luck > to all of us :) > > Proposed para > (starts) > > We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided > among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the > technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way > this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and the > bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, IETF > etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings. > Representation of both these groups is important. We think that technical > expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business > sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas > working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate > availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important > criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these sectors. > > On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that are > in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not to > be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' existing > Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of around > 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be divided > among governments, civil society and the business sector. The > representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of the > MAG. > > (ends) > > This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be > improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given by > Ian. > > "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to > appreciate that the above three way division is as per political > representation based on interests of, or representation of different > interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate > the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet > administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives > should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While > appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to > describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical > expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which > they should be selected. > > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG >> >> Hi, >> >> On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >> >>> 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or >> pretty >>> much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a >> listserv; >>> maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's >> draft >>> tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our >> collective >>> views. >> >> Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two >> weeks >> to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked >> through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus >> statement >> to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no >> consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the only >> option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that >> would >> have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by >> Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, the >> system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage to >> vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the caucus >> decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who >> refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical >> community >> should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the >> "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? What >> do >> we expect to happen in consequence? >> >> This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of >> process >> and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in >> Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in the >> larger environment. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 13 08:41:47 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:41:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080213115757.A9286E1661@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional > framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just one session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens and replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something there, maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. BD On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main > themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful > impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its > mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in > the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new > themes during the May 2007 consultations. > > I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and > other possible themes are welcome. > > > 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' > > We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific > issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the > plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making > what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that > are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be > chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. > > We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional > framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging > policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main > session themes. > > IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global > Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be > a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out > with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body > is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the > area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important > responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. > > We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue > of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all > for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing > a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC > contributions mention these) > > Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above > > (ends) > > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 13 08:58:32 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:58:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080213103805.GA28185@nic.fr> References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20080213103805.GA28185@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 13/02/2008, at 7:38 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to >> gain any status within the organisation. > > Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the > same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to > gain any status in a bar association... That is a good point, because in fact the International Bar Association's International Code of Ethics is a form of private or transnational law with public policy ramifications, as are other forms of private ordering such as the law-like rules of stock markets and financial networks such as Visa. There are grounds to argue for greater democratic accountability in how such private law is developed. > This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same > problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for > instance). I certainly agree. >> and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on >> policy questions. > > Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US > governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC. Ideally, the IGF is an open forum for the very reason that anyone who is impacted and can demonstrate by rational argument that this is so, can have a hand in shaping policy on the issues that impact them. >> One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit >> of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through >> its own recommendations. > > Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and > which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning > Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all > its standards...) If by "will" you mean "should", then most assuredly, yes. If you mean "will", then not in my lifetime, probably. -- 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 ronda.netizen at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 11:19:37 2008 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] ARPA 50th Anniversary - the Model for Basic Research which made possible the Internet Message-ID: The research agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which made it possible to create the Internet is celebrating its 50th anniversary. My ARPA article is now online at OhmyNews International and also on my blog at Tageszeitung The urls are ARPA's 50th Anniversary and the Internet: a Model for Basic Research http://taz.de/blogs/netizenblog/2008/02/12/arpas-50th-anniversary-and-the-internet-a-model-for-basic-research/ It's also online at OhmyNews International http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&no=381747&rel_no=1 I welcome any comments or discussion on it. with best wishes Ronda -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 13 11:23:12 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:23:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Hi, > >Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging > >As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just one >session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens and >replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be >assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and >inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental >institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into >this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to >Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something there, >maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. Arghhh... what's the point of trying to report what the guy who leads the IGF secretariat is saying and what's going to come up in the MAG? The first paragraph of the IISD paper I mentioned would also be part of the push for ICT/environment/sustainable development in the IGF: 1. In response to the request for comments and views on the November 2007 Rio de Janeiro meeting, and suggestions regarding the format and content of the December 2008 New Delhi meeting, this paper proposes that Sustainable Development be considered as a theme for the New Delhi meeting, and that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to "exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development" etc etc available at Enjoy. Thanks, Adam >BD > >On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main >> themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful >> impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its >> mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in >> the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new >> themes during the May 2007 consultations. >> >> I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and >> other possible themes are welcome. >> >> >> 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' >> >> We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific >> issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the >> plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making >> what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that >> are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be >> chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. >> >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging >> policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main >> session themes. >>  >> IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global >> Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be >> a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out >> with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body >> is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the >> area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important >> responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. >> >> We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue >> of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all >> for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing >> a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC >> contributions mention these) >> >> Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above >> >> (ends) >> >> Parminder > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 11:35:38 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:05:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080213163611.9F8C5A6C45@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Hi Parminder, > > I don't want to go around and around on the point, especially since the > concerns I've raised are more political/procedural than substantive. But > I > do think that the issue of defining the stakeholders in question is more > complex than your solution suggests; that a proper dissection of it would > take more time and broader dialogue than is possible now; But we will never discuss these things in leisure. The time for renewal of MAG, when the issue and meaning of tech community is being discussed even inside MAG, I think is the perfect time for discussing this issue. Why postpone it. I consider it politically one of the most important issue to discuss, especially when the community confusion/ overlap is mostly with CS. Other matters in th statement can be decided even when we keep discussing this issue. I don't see any other time coming which will be especially good for this discussion. Other than, of course, if we put it to vote. Which in my opinion we should if it remains inconclusive for the open consultations. that the > consensus > for your approach is among a pretty small portion of the population > reading > this thread; I saw only McTim having some objections, and no other clear objection (correct me if I am wrong). If others have objection they need to come out and say it. Playing coy wont work, because we are trying to accomplish important caucus business and other people have out their views out on the matter. It will of course be helpful if stating ones position is accompanied with some amount of rationale and if necessary some minimum degree of engagement with others who may have some differing views. That in my view is how this caucus should be functioning. and that this may do more to deepen divides than anything > else. Well, don't have much to say on this. That way we will not discus anything for the fear of deepening divides, and divides will stay and the caucus will continue to be politically ineffective. > I hope I'm proven wrong on the last. Me too hopes. In any event, I would suggest a > different acronym than IABs, since one of them is the IAB, bit confusing. This is wide open. Suggestions welcome. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > On 2/13/08 11:43 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > Bill > > > > I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the > > 'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear' > > reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB > reps, > > than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view > that > > we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with > McTim's > > reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require > > Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on > this > > issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's > > observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose > > below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/ > > organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view > that > > it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original > > draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part > of > > the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share > this > > meaning of 'tech community'). > > > > The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear > representation > > of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. > > > > As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have > done > > statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve > important > > issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A > week > > is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a > > day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this > > important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of > luck > > to all of us :) > > > > Proposed para > > (starts) > > > > We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the > > technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way > > this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and > the > > bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, > IETF > > etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings. > > Representation of both these groups is important. We think that > technical > > expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business > > sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas > > working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate > > availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important > > criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these > sectors. > > > > On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that > are > > in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > > should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not > to > > be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' > existing > > Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of > around > > 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be > divided > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. The > > representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of > the > > MAG. > > > > (ends) > > > > This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be > > improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given > by > > Ian. > > > > "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important > to > > appreciate that the above three way division is as per political > > representation based on interests of, or representation of different > > interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we > appreciate > > the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing > Internet > > administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six > representatives > > should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While > > appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used > to > > describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical > > expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on > which > > they should be selected. > > > > > > Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM > >> To: Governance > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > >> > >>> 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or > >> pretty > >>> much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a > >> listserv; > >>> maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's > >> draft > >>> tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our > >> collective > >>> views. > >> > >> Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two > >> weeks > >> to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked > >> through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus > >> statement > >> to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no > >> consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the > only > >> option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that > >> would > >> have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by > >> Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, > the > >> system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage > to > >> vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the > caucus > >> decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who > >> refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical > >> community > >> should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the > >> "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? > What > >> do > >> we expect to happen in consequence? > >> > >> This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of > >> process > >> and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in > >> Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in > the > >> larger environment. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 13 11:44:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:14:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080213164522.38E69A6CC7@smtp2.electricembers.net> > > Hi, > > Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > > > We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy > institutional > > framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and > emerging > > As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just > one > session. In my view an over-arching theme means exactly nothing. Don't you think so, with the experience of Athens and Rio. For instance, I heard no panelist in a content regulation/ FoE workshop pause and say, well lets consider what it means in a developing country context. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens > and > replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be > assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and > inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental > institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into > this). Yes, one should be development agenda in IG (Swiss and APC suggest WGs on this), and one can be on assessing WSIS principles... but my suggestion of assessing the global public policy landscape is different. It will assess who makes or doesn't make what policy, what gaps remain (which are acknowledged in TA, and I think we all agree there are major gaps, the ICANN issue is also mainly bec of these gaps, if it were only doing tech functions and not public policy functions we will have little problem with it), what can be done abt these gaps, what was meant by enhanced cooperation, how is it going or not going, what can be done about it etc... Parminder If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to > Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something > there, > maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. > > BD > > On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main > > themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any > meaningful > > impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its > > mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes > in > > the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new > > themes during the May 2007 consultations. > > > > I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and > > other possible themes are welcome. > > > > > > 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' > > > > We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more > specific > > issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the > > plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just > making > > what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues > that > > are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be > > chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. > > > > We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy > institutional > > framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and > emerging > > policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main > > session themes. > > > > IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the > global > > Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has > to be > > a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come > out > > with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No > body > > is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in > the > > area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important > > responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. > > > > We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the > issue > > of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in > all > > for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to > developing > > a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC > > contributions mention these) > > > > Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of > the > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above > > > > (ends) > > > > 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 Wed Feb 13 12:10:24 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:10:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20080213103805.GA28185@nic.fr> Message-ID: Center for Democracy and Technology had a project on this kind of thing for a while. Info at I believe the policy/lawyers from CDT had computer/tech backgrounds, which helped, but they were at the IETF to look at issues from a policy perspective. Best I can remember of how CDT described their experience was they were looked at oddly at first, but once seen to be serious and had attended a couple of meetings and the WGs they were interested in, they were themselves taken seriously. They gained "status" by showing up and doing work. Perhaps a problem it revealed is that you had to attend a few meetings (time and money involved) before you were in the trusted group. I've heard telecom people say this is a problem with the IETF, and doesn't happen to the same extent in (for example) ITU and ETSI tech standards groups where contributions of newcomers are accepted more quickly (they benefit from the trust associated with their organization perhaps?) I can imagine the IETF may be harder to "penetrate" for people with less resources. Perhaps harder for people from developing countries. All above relies on my poor memory and it's getting late... and it has little to do with the consultation! Adam At 10:58 PM +0900 2/13/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 13/02/2008, at 7:38 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >>>As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to >>>gain any status within the organisation. >> >>Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the >>same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to >>gain any status in a bar association... > >That is a good point, because in fact the International Bar >Association's International Code of Ethics is a form of private or >transnational law with public policy ramifications, as are other >forms of private ordering such as the law-like rules of stock >markets and financial networks such as Visa. There are grounds to >argue for greater democratic accountability in how such private law >is developed. > >>This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same >>problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for >>instance). > >I certainly agree. > >>>and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on >>>policy questions. >> >>Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US >>governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC. > >Ideally, the IGF is an open forum for the very reason that anyone >who is impacted and can demonstrate by rational argument that this >is so, can have a hand in shaping policy on the issues that impact >them. > >>>One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit >>>of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through >>>its own recommendations. >> >>Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and >>which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning >>Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all >>its standards...) > >If by "will" you mean "should", then most assuredly, yes. If you >mean "will", then not in my lifetime, probably. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 12:50:01 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:50:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Holiday Valentine email scam infects computers... Message-ID: Holiday Valentine email scam infects computers... http://www.emergencyemail.org/newsemergency/anmviewer.asp?a=283&z=1 The US FBI issued this warning, defining their own role in governance. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 13 13:24:23 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:24:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Parminder, The text is closer to acceptable than I thought you could get at this stage, congrats for that : ) A few comments below: First, as was noted, IAB has a several decades old, particular meaning in Internet circles. It is therefore problematic as an acronym. I suggest IAO, for Organization; wikipedia says it also is a gnostic demi-god, Hawaiian for 'dawn,' and was oh yeah the acronym for DARPA's now defunct Information Awareness Office ; ). Seriously, you need another acronym. Second, tactically I am not sure we as CS want to be advocating more quotas and categories. Usually we're all for openness and inclusiveness right. On other hand recognizing the landscape and clearly thinking through definitions is a good thing, so I could be convinced otherwise, but for now I think civil society's interests are best served by being co-equal in the phrase 'government, business, and civil society.' At a more granular level who should be in MAG, roles and functions of Internet governance, etc, then sure more categories and clearly understanding roles and interests is helpful. More important, I want to know what MAG is going to be in future, which is the main point of your note. So I agree it is good to raise the issue of MAG composition and function going forward, but I suggest we propose a process for deliberation and adjustment over the coming year, to be reported and discussed in New Delhi. Like the 'future of igf' session last time but focused a level below at the precise structure and purpose, and composition of the MAG, and its role in various proposed activities of the IGF. Which results in, gasp, a report, before or after IGF. Maybe a report from Wolfgang in his 'special advisor' capacity, maybe an IGF working group appointed by Kummer, whatever, something concrete and legally and administratively sound. Not that the emails and your note aren't fine and informative for what they are, but we're sort of talking IGF (and MAG) constitutional principles here. And yeah I know the point of the upcoming consultation is to gather views, but I think this is a bigger deal not settled in 1 consultation. Or 1 IGC rough consensus doc. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 02/13/08 5:43 AM >>> Bill I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the 'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear' reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB reps, than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view that we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with McTim's reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on this issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/ organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view that it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part of the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share this meaning of 'tech community'). The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear representation of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have done statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve important issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A week is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of luck to all of us :) Proposed para (starts) We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and the bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings. Representation of both these groups is important. We think that technical expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these sectors. On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that are in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not to be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' existing Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of around 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be divided among governments, civil society and the business sector. The representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of the MAG. (ends) This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given by Ian. "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which they should be selected. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Hi, > > On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or > pretty > > much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a > listserv; > > maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's > draft > > tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our > collective > > views. > > Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two > weeks > to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked > through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus > statement > to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no > consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the only > option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that > would > have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by > Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, the > system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage to > vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the caucus > decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who > refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical > community > should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the > "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? What > do > we expect to happen in consequence? > > This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of > process > and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in > Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in the > larger environment. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 13 14:55:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:55:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main themes In-Reply-To: <20080213115757.A9286E1661@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <027201c86e7a$65603b10$8b00a8c0@IAN> I don’t think too many workshops was the problem so much as too much clash between similar workshops on the same general theme – because we bulked all discussion on say security into a two day block leading up to a plenary on that subject – after which there was very little discussion on a theme whose plenary had past. I think each theme chosen could have a continual running thread throughout the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth analysis in their chosen areas I also recommend a common break time at lunch for essential networking (in Rio it was hard to find time for lunch or between sessions). I don't think there were too many sessions - rather too many clashes between sessions with similar themes because of the way all sessions on a theme were to be completed in a time frame before a plenary on the same subject. I think we have to accept that as IGF matures more and more participants will be coming for one theme only of interest, rather than the broad overview of all issues. That’s good, we get more specialized, and we begin to get some quality outputs. The conference agenda should encourage people to delve more deeply into one particular theme of interest. On another subject, I think the sustainable development theme is a good one and that could include the ICT/Greenhouse issue. I’m personally following that one very closely, but it’s an ICT management and architecture issue rather than an Internet governance issue, and I don’t think it deserves a theme to itself at IGF. (but a well structured workshop or two would be useful under a larger theme) And instead of ‘An assessment of the current global policy institutional framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging policy related challenges’ (crisper title welcome) be one of the main session themes. …. I agree with the thrust but perhaps we could word it something like Emerging policy issues and governance requirements, and current governance structures, Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____________________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 February 2008 22:58 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main themes Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main themes – that are just too general – will not contribute to any meaningful impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new themes during the May 2007 consultations. I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and other possible themes are welcome. 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. We propose that ‘An assessment of the current global policy institutional framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging policy related challenges’ (crisper title welcome) be one of the main session themes. IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC contributions mention these) Both these workshops can feed into the main session on ‘assessment of the current global policy institutional framework’ proposed above (ends) Parminder _____________________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:02 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - process > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. This is for a second (possible) caucus statement on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi. Some discussion on these issues has already started on this list in the 'reconstituting MAG' thread, and the ‘ICANN Delhi, Workshop....’ thread, and I will also pull together material from these. You may like to see APC's and Swiss govs contributions in this regard at HYPERLINK "http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html" http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html ,. (Also see Jeremy’s contribution posted at HYPERLINK "http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio" http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio ) All these makee some very important suggestions, which we can consider. I will list some important issues that may be highlighted (again very rough points). We should keep our intervention short and incisive and therefore raise only those issues which we see as really and centrally important. Instead of making two sections on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi, we will go by different issues, and mention both at the same place. (I will first put some text of appreciation for the hosts, and all facilities etc. Anyone with any specific suggestion can give inputs.) I think the main issue is about the huge number of workshops, and the thin attendance at the plenaries which puts the significance of IGF as ONE forum out of focus. We should suggest fewer and more structured workshops, with more vigorous merging of workshops. (the Swiss doc also suggests this.) But if this conflicts with the objective of many participants being allowed to use the IGF space for their workshops/ activities, we can use a format of two kinds of workshops. Type A which are strongly linked with the plenaries, and are few in number, and type B where are more open-ended, and about these MAG should be more liberal on the numbers (limited only by the logistics issue). (I don’t want to put hierarchies here - but that’s the only solution to reconcile opposing imperatives of a meaningful cohesiveness on one hand, and diversity and openness of the forum on the other.) I think some such separation of types of workshops was tried in Rio, or in the run up to it, but it didn’t really work out. We can try it this time, with more time for preparation. In merging workshops, all kinds of diversities - geo-political, of special interests, of range of views, etc. - must be kept in mind. The number of workshop that any one group is able to hold will accordingly be limited (at least for type A). Within each of these workshops effort should be made to promote a meaningful dialogue and discussion across a range of views, and not just a futile interaction among the converted. The central part of the IGF, type A workshops and plenaries should be arranged tightly with common themes, with the purpose of meaningful outcomes. These outcomes should be oriented towards the IGF’s mandate in terms of global Internet public policy issues. There should be no overlap between plenaries and these workshops, though some of these workshops can be held simultaneously. Working Groups should be set up to both prepare for these subject based plenaries and their associated workshops (working with their sponsors)and to synthesize their outcomes in a more focused and output oriented way, than just a chair's summary as at present along with disparate unconnected individual workshop report (see Swiss contribution, they ask for all these. Also see APC's contribution). What we are trying to do here is to super-impose an architecture of a more organized and output-oriented aspect of IGF over the existing open town hall architecture, without either aspect constraining the possibilities and functioning of the other aspect. In fact, the combined architecture is meant to allow the two aspects to be able to draw a lot of substance and strength from each other. This is to enable IGF to meet all the requirements of its Tunis Agenda. Dynamic coalition should also be better structured in the IGF’s main processes (suggestions invited for this…) The preparations for the Delhi meet should start really early to give ourselves adequate time to make it a major improvement over Rio and Athens, each of which, we do acknowledge had their distinctive positive features. (the process part of the statements ends, I am separately posting some main themes related suggestions) Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi > > > >Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > >taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > >the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > >responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > >(and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > >for you to coordinate). > > > Thanks Jeremy for alerting us to this. > > I am starting two discussion threads - this one for > > (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common > position > on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and > what > should change for New Delhi. Pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php. > > And another thread separately with regard to the issue of rotation of > members of the MAG. > > From the response we get on these two threads we will take a call if a > consensus statement for each of above can be proposed to the list. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 2:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? > > Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own > responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC > (and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate > for you to coordinate). > > All the best. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 12/02/2008 15:20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date: 13/02/2008 09:41 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 11174 bytes Desc: not available URL: From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 13 15:27:56 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:27:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Holiday Valentine email scam infects computers... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080213202756.GB25737@hserus.net> Sylvia Caras [13/02/08 09:50 -0800]: >Holiday Valentine email scam infects computers... > >http://www.emergencyemail.org/newsemergency/anmviewer.asp?a=283&z=1 > >The US FBI issued this warning, defining their own role in governance. Governance? They have a mandate to investigate cybercrime. And are the usual point of contact for US citizens who have been scammed through cybercrime. I believe even local police would refer them to FBI in most cases. So - they issue public advisories, targeted at US citizens of course, but as spam, worms, cybercrime etc are global, and as the advice is sound, no reason why most of the advice cant apply worldwide. May I suggest a primary source by the way (such as a pointer to the FBI advisory)? That would be easier - that emergencyemail.org link you quoted is crowded with more ads than content. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 13 16:17:05 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:17:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080213163611.9F8C5A6C45@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <02a901c86e85$d08bd5b0$8b00a8c0@IAN> I think there is more consensus than meets the eye here. I think what we all seem to agree on is 1. CS agrees that there should be representatives of current internet governance institutions on the MAG. 2. Somewhere around 6 representatives (if MAG levels stay the same) seems a proper level for this group 3. Some CS members have misgivings about the accuracy of the term technical community to describe this representation 4. CS feels that civil society is under-represented on the current MAG 5. There is a range of views within CS as to whether the representation for current internet administration groups should be drawn equally from traditional stakeholder groups (government, business, civil society) or treated separately. I think we are close to a very good statement - is it possible to see a recompilation? -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 14 February 2008 03:36 To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > Hi Parminder, > > I don't want to go around and around on the point, especially since the > concerns I've raised are more political/procedural than substantive. But > I > do think that the issue of defining the stakeholders in question is more > complex than your solution suggests; that a proper dissection of it would > take more time and broader dialogue than is possible now; But we will never discuss these things in leisure. The time for renewal of MAG, when the issue and meaning of tech community is being discussed even inside MAG, I think is the perfect time for discussing this issue. Why postpone it. I consider it politically one of the most important issue to discuss, especially when the community confusion/ overlap is mostly with CS. Other matters in th statement can be decided even when we keep discussing this issue. I don't see any other time coming which will be especially good for this discussion. Other than, of course, if we put it to vote. Which in my opinion we should if it remains inconclusive for the open consultations. that the > consensus > for your approach is among a pretty small portion of the population > reading > this thread; I saw only McTim having some objections, and no other clear objection (correct me if I am wrong). If others have objection they need to come out and say it. Playing coy wont work, because we are trying to accomplish important caucus business and other people have out their views out on the matter. It will of course be helpful if stating ones position is accompanied with some amount of rationale and if necessary some minimum degree of engagement with others who may have some differing views. That in my view is how this caucus should be functioning. and that this may do more to deepen divides than anything > else. Well, don't have much to say on this. That way we will not discus anything for the fear of deepening divides, and divides will stay and the caucus will continue to be politically ineffective. > I hope I'm proven wrong on the last. Me too hopes. In any event, I would suggest a > different acronym than IABs, since one of them is the IAB, bit confusing. This is wide open. Suggestions welcome. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > On 2/13/08 11:43 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > Bill > > > > I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the > > 'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear' > > reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB > reps, > > than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view > that > > we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with > McTim's > > reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require > > Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on > this > > issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's > > observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose > > below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/ > > organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view > that > > it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original > > draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part > of > > the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share > this > > meaning of 'tech community'). > > > > The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear > representation > > of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. > > > > As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have > done > > statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve > important > > issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A > week > > is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a > > day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this > > important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of > luck > > to all of us :) > > > > Proposed para > > (starts) > > > > We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the > > technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way > > this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and > the > > bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, > IETF > > etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings. > > Representation of both these groups is important. We think that > technical > > expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business > > sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas > > working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate > > availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important > > criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these > sectors. > > > > On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that > are > > in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > > should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not > to > > be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' > existing > > Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of > around > > 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be > divided > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. The > > representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of > the > > MAG. > > > > (ends) > > > > This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be > > improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given > by > > Ian. > > > > "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important > to > > appreciate that the above three way division is as per political > > representation based on interests of, or representation of different > > interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we > appreciate > > the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing > Internet > > administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six > representatives > > should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While > > appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used > to > > describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical > > expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on > which > > they should be selected. > > > > > > Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM > >> To: Governance > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > >> > >>> 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or > >> pretty > >>> much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a > >> listserv; > >>> maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's > >> draft > >>> tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our > >> collective > >>> views. > >> > >> Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange. Less than two > >> weeks > >> to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked > >> through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus > >> statement > >> to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest. With no > >> consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the > only > >> option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that > >> would > >> have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by > >> Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, > the > >> system used for our prior vote isn't available). And if we do manage > to > >> vote, then what? Let's say we release a statement saying that the > caucus > >> decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who > >> refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical > >> community > >> should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the > >> "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)? > What > >> do > >> we expect to happen in consequence? > >> > >> This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of > >> process > >> and outcome is envisaged on this. And on the other issues covered in > >> Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in > the > >> larger environment. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 12/02/2008 15:20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date: 13/02/2008 09:41 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 13 16:50:58 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:50:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080213164522.38E69A6CC7@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, > In my view an over-arching theme means exactly nothing. Don't you think so, > with the experience of Athens and Rio. For instance, I heard no panelist in I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues, which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a special reading of that language). I don't understand your point on Athens Rio, there was no overarching theme, really. > Yes, one should be development agenda in IG (Swiss and APC suggest WGs on > this), and one can be on assessing WSIS principles... but my suggestion of More generally, it should be said that the Swiss paper is really very good from a CS standpoint----probably the best fit with CS positions on multiple points I've seen from any government since the WSIS IG debate began. OFCOM hits not just the development agenda (they co-sponsored the Rio WS) and WSIS principles ideas, but also WGs, upstream linking of workshops and main sessions, need for a multi-vocal outcome doc, public service considerations, plus pressing for funding commitments, clarification of enhanced cooperation...This on top of them making CS' case in ITU for us. Shows that inter-species dialogue can be productive, worth remembering in drafting etc... > assessing the global public policy landscape is different. It will assess > who makes or doesn't make what policy, what gaps remain (which are > acknowledged in TA, and I think we all agree there are major gaps, the ICANN > issue is also mainly bec of these gaps, if it were only doing tech functions > and not public policy functions we will have little problem with it), what > can be done abt these gaps, what was meant by enhanced cooperation, how is > it going or not going, what can be done about it etc... Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec. maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 13 20:02:07 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:02:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080213104342.32486E1B75@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080213104342.32486E1B75@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <718FD756-8BBA-421F-BD53-A3872674E18C@Malcolm.id.au> On 13/02/2008, at 7:43 PM, Parminder wrote: > On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies > that are > in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which > not to > be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' > existing > Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of > around > 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be > divided > among governments, civil society and the business sector. The > representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members > of the > MAG. Thanks for these draft statements. I agree with Bill about avoiding the acronym "IAB" (how about IGB or IGI for Internet governance body/ institution?), and personally I would have taken a different tack, suggesting that Internet governance institutions should be treated the same as intergovernmental organisations who are allowed to appoint observers to the group. I won't block consensus though if the group prefers your approach. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 13 21:48:46 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:48:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <718FD756-8BBA-421F-BD53-A3872674E18C@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20080213104342.32486E1B75@smtp3.electricembers.net> <718FD756-8BBA-421F-BD53-A3872674E18C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20080214024846.GA912@hserus.net> Jeremy Malcolm [14/02/08 10:02 +0900]: > Thanks for these draft statements. I agree with Bill about avoiding the > acronym "IAB" (how about IGB or IGI for Internet governance > body/institution?), and personally I would have taken a different tack, > suggesting that Internet governance institutions should be treated the same > as intergovernmental organisations who are allowed to appoint observers to > the group. I won't block consensus though if the group prefers your > approach. Observers, technically, dont do more than observe. Or at the most comment. Your wording would limit any meaningful stake these groups have. I am more open to Bill Drake's wording on this. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 14 02:30:33 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:30:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA Message-ID: Hi, Wolf Ludwig just passed along the below statement from Delhi by the Consumers Union of the U.S, which is a fairly substantial entity as CS goes. They oppose setting ICANN free on the grounds that there¹s insufficient CS outreach and engagement, and that ³ICANN does sees itself as a multi-stakeholder organization, with industry, government, and industry groups as the stakeholders.² The Center for Democracy and Technology has also opposed ending the JPA on the grounds that it has not been done enough about ³implementing transparent, open, and representative decision-making, based on the bottom-up principle,² and an IMHO rather less clear stance that a freed ICANN will be subject to takeover by dark governmental and intergovernmental forces. www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpacomments2007/jpacomment_006.pdf Other comments by people here, e.g. Karl, George, opposing termination. I¹m curious about US vs global CS perspectives on this...? Bill COMMENTS OF CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH, Consumers Union of the U.S., On ICANN Joint Project Agreement with U.S. Commerce Department February 14, 2008 Consumer Reports WebWatch of the Consumers Union, representing 9 million consumers in the United States and Canada, supports ICANN¹s efforts to evolve and move forward toward an existence apart from the JPA agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, at this mid-term review phase, we do not believe the organization is ready to function without a similar accountability mechanism to the JPA in place. Major changes need to occur within the organization to assure more efficient and meaningful user community representation, with long-term guarantees that such representation would endure unforeseen scenarios in the future. Our justifications for this position are simple: First, we do not believe the structure of ICANN as it exists today sufficiently takes into account the needs and opinions of end-users. Based on a review of operational documents and bylaws, we do not see any sort of language guaranteeing meaningful user participation into the future. To address this issue, Consumers Union believes the at-large community needs multiple seats on the ICANN board; the initial bylaws, in fact, called for fully half the board to be elected by the at-large. We base this opinion on Consumer Reports WebWatch¹s own 11-month experience as an ³at-large structure² recruited by ICANN, and our eight months¹ experience as an elected representative to the at-large advisory committee.__Second, though the outreach work of ICANN at-large staff Nick Ashton-Hart and Kieran McCarthy is commendable, ICANN¹s staff and public communications budget is insufficient to address a much larger problem of outreach. To elaborate: Currently, the NA-RALO is made up of a scant handful of organizations. While these are valuable partners, in no way could the NA-RALO be characterized as a viable representation of a broad-based user community in the United States and Canada. Further, many consumer organizations in the United States with a mission that includes the intersection of technology and consumer issues, remain skeptical of ICANN's intentions and its viability as an organization that takes consumer views into account. Until something is done to bridge this gap and ICANN demonstrates its good intentions and long-term structural viability to organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and others, we do not believe ICANN can be considered to be acting in accordance with the concerns of the user community in North America.__In addition, there are no guarantees beyond mention in the bylaws that the "at-large community," itself currently under review, would remain a part of the ICANN structure 20 or even 10 years from now. The at-large advisory committee is without a vote in any meaningful policy forum. Without direct user community representation on the ICANN board, we do not believe ICANN is truly acting as a ³multi-stakeholder" organization. We are concerned, in fact, that ICANN does sees itself as a multi-stakeholder organization, with industry, government, and industry groups as the stakeholders. It does not help matters much that many within the ICANN community view domain name registrants as the Internet¹s ³end-users,² and therefore the farthest realm the ICANN needs to reach. Until these issues are addressed we do not believe the organization is ready to progress beyond the JPA, which refers to "the global participation of all stakeholders" and "mechanisms for involvement of those affected by the ICANN policies." As the Internet-using public is a key set of stakeholders affected by ICANN's policies, it is critical, including for Internet security and stability, that the organization be accountable to the public and account effectively for its input. We believe the following three things need to happen in order for ICANN to move forward beyond the JPA: 1. Address lack of meaningful user representation, and assure its long-term viability within the organization, by creating multiple ³user community² seats on the ICANN board. 2. Allocate significant budget to get the message that it has done so, out to civil society stakeholder groups in North America and the global user community. 3. Take administrative steps to ensure the long-term structural existence of user community presence and participation in decision-making. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Beau Brendler, Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch, and member, ICANN at-large advisory committee *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Feb 14 03:38:05 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:38:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <718FD756-8BBA-421F-BD53-A3872674E18C@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20080213104342.32486E1B75@smtp3.electricembers.net> <718FD756-8BBA-421F-BD53-A3872674E18C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Le 14 févr. 08 à 02:02, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > On 13/02/2008, at 7:43 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/ >> bodies that are >> in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF >> etc) >> should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, >> which not to >> be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' >> existing >> Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota >> of around >> 6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be >> divided >> among governments, civil society and the business sector. The >> representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other >> members of the >> MAG. > > Thanks for these draft statements. I agree with Bill about > avoiding the acronym "IAB" (how about IGB or IGI for Internet > governance body/institution?), and personally I would have taken a > different tack, suggesting that Internet governance institutions > should be treated the same as intergovernmental organisations who > are allowed to appoint observers to the group. I won't block > consensus though if the group prefers your approach. As for the acronym: - prefer "body" or "institution" rather than "organization" (which sounds more incorporated - think of IETF) - prefer "administration" or "management" rather than "governance" (we want to distinguish them from IGF, right?) - "Internet" seems unavoidable:) ==> IMB, IMI, IAI are possible acronyms. As for the status in MAG: We have to show coherence in our statement: the whole point is that this "technical community", renamed or not, shouldn't be a stakeholder of the same nature as governments, business, civil society (which are the sole three natural stakeholders of any global governance forum), but more relevant players, ad hoc to the specific governance field (Internet). If IGF was dealing with, say, environment governance, then we would still have gov, biz, cs, and some other ad hoc players. I do agree with Jeremy that, because of their nature, they should be treated in the same way as, probably not intergovernmental organizations in general (i.e. not like OECD, CoE, La Francophonie, etc.), but certainly as UN Agencies involved in the field (ITU, UNESCO, etc.). Suresh's point about observers status is right in general, but remember that here we're talking of the MAG, and the important word here is "Advisory": it's fine for an observer to advise in such an arena. As for the number/quota: Strategically, it's not a good idea to give a number. First reason is that we don't know the future size of the MAG (6 out of 40 may be fine, 6 out of 20 is far too much). Second reason is that these bodies will immediately start to count themselves, and the discussion will soon be focused on the quota. Third reason is that giving them a quota may weaken the point that they're not a stakeholder of the same nature as gov, biz and cs. So we should prefer a general formulation like, e.g., "in addition to the three stakeholders represented in equal proportions, the MAG should include a limited number of representatives of other relevant players: Internet Management Institutions operating at global level, Intergovernmental organizations and UN agencies relevant to and active in Internet governance. Or any other formulation that leaves for later discussions the quota issue. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 14 03:59:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:29:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080214090017.EB8B567894@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill > I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues, > which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a > special reading of that language). I mean, well let me be blunt, we need to know whats happening about enhanced cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility of THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various options, analyze advantages and disadvantages etc. The greatest part of IG part of TA is in fact a struggle to figure out the right way to say that the new policy challenges in IG areas requires new responses and possibly new insituional mechanisms. The EC language is a peg holder for these future possibilities. Are we as IGC not interested in this area? Do we not want to debate, and influence these processes, and ask questions. IGC already has once written to UN SG's special advisor expressing concern about whats happening and not happening on EC, and staking claim that CS should be there whenever anything happens. CS main role in policy spaces is deliberative, providing new options, asking questions, extracting accountability etc - we can do most of them through IGF itself in context of EC (not that we shd not participate in EC processes proper, whatever they may be). Are we happy to let people forget, especially when an extra-ordinary number is keen to forget, that there is something like EC, which is an attempt to answer the Internet policy challenges at the global level? What is our collective position on this. (At present I am going by the IGC position expressed in the said letter.) Does it not qualify as one of the key public policy issues that IGF is supposed to discuss. A main session with appropriate workshops arranged around it will be the appropriate forum for this. That what is being sought here. But it can be more general survey of the entire global Internet policy framework, or absence of it, or gaps in it, rather than just EC, a concept no one really knows much about. As I understand Either (1) there is no need, present or emerging, for global Internet public policy mechanisms. I don't think this is our position. Or (2) existing global IG institutions already do all the public policy that is needed. But I am often told - latest by McTim, that ICANN neither does public policy nor is keen to do it. So, either we accept that there are gaps in public policy regime here, or accept the point of another set of people who do insist ICANN etc does public policy, and also mostly say that it is an illegitimate exercise. Which makes it look we should be interesting in assessing, examining and exploring the global Internet policy regime, exiting, emerging or potential, as a key public policy issue. That's what this main session will do. > I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues, As for the whole thing being about IG issues and institutions, we know that the workshops happen the whole thing is not about them. And also that a focused examination of EC and other specific insituional requirement issues is at a different level. I don't understand your point on > Athens > Rio, there was no overarching theme, really. Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that really means nothing. But the fact was prominently displayed in all official docs etc. > Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec. > maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing? That was Milton's formulation though I largely agreed with it. Does my placing EC in the centre of the formulation make it clearer? A lot of people - Wolfgang, McTim on this list, and some others like in the IGF workshop at Delhi ICANN meeting are suggesting that EC is what is actually happening right now at the IGF. Lets examine this perspective also. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:21 AM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > > Parminder, > > > In my view an over-arching theme means exactly nothing. Don't you think > so, > > with the experience of Athens and Rio. For instance, I heard no panelist > in > > I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues, > which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a > special reading of that language). I don't understand your point on > Athens > Rio, there was no overarching theme, really. > > > Yes, one should be development agenda in IG (Swiss and APC suggest WGs > on > > this), and one can be on assessing WSIS principles... but my suggestion > of > > More generally, it should be said that the Swiss paper is really very good > from a CS standpoint----probably the best fit with CS positions on > multiple > points I've seen from any government since the WSIS IG debate began. > OFCOM > hits not just the development agenda (they co-sponsored the Rio WS) and > WSIS > principles ideas, but also WGs, upstream linking of workshops and main > sessions, need for a multi-vocal outcome doc, public service > considerations, > plus pressing for funding commitments, clarification of enhanced > cooperation...This on top of them making CS' case in ITU for us. Shows > that > inter-species dialogue can be productive, worth remembering in drafting > etc... > > > assessing the global public policy landscape is different. It will > assess > > who makes or doesn't make what policy, what gaps remain (which are > > acknowledged in TA, and I think we all agree there are major gaps, the > ICANN > > issue is also mainly bec of these gaps, if it were only doing tech > functions > > and not public policy functions we will have little problem with it), > what > > can be done abt these gaps, what was meant by enhanced cooperation, how > is > > it going or not going, what can be done about it etc... > > Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec. > maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 04:14:27 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:44:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214090017.EB8B567894@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080214090017.EB8B567894@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <01e701c86eea$020df190$0629d4b0$@net> Parminder wrote: > enhanced cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility > of THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various * EC is very important - and there is extensive scope within the existing mechanism for this. * Trying to gain even soft oversight functions over ICANN is a nonstarter and doesn't have much consensus here > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that They were, and rightly so. I find it amazing that CS groups that already do such a lot of this tend to play down its importance. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Feb 14 04:23:46 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:23:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG References: <47b27cbf.16078e0a.55ac.ffffb047SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20080213103805.GA28185@nic.fr> Message-ID: <001e01c86eeb$4f920a40$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear all I'm following this very important thread and -despite I'm not an TCP/IP guru- I feel some basics are highlighted in this discussion such as the importance (the prerequisite) of infrastructure, and moreover its architecture, i.e. the global distribution of the "fisrt class nodes". Even this "hard" concepts are actual policy issues. Remember where and how the SWIFT network was tapped and in whose interests this official act of piracy was done. In its message Stephane wrote : "Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all its standards...)" Quite right, Stephane : ITU is in the very heart of this issue. There was a revealing "radio silence" from the Geneva Tower during the SWIFT scandal, as there was during the ECHELON affair and other "Big Brother (US) ventures". This strange beheaviour should be addressed more strongly by civil society, and condemned accordingly. I'd just refer to the good job done by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, whose well documented Reports demonstrated the dangers and responsibilities in both these "Information scandals". Just one remark on the the ITU's closed character : if your (CS) organization is (very) rich, it can become a member of this UN Agency. Just put your money on the ITU desk and, depending on its amount, you'll be "sector member" or (if your cash is lower) an "associated member". This shows the actual difference between IETF (and other SDO) and the ITU in terms of closed constituencies. Conversely, it allows its bosses to claim the "openness" of the ITU and what's more its "multistakeholder character", in line whith the WSIS recommendations. This means that "openness" may just be an affair of criteria ... All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: ; "Jeremy Malcolm" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:38 AM Subject: [governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:58PM +0900, > Jeremy Malcolm wrote > a message of 44 lines which said: > >> As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to >> gain any status within the organisation. > > Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the > same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to > gain any status in a bar association... > >> merit is judged on the basis of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP >> networking. > > Many IETFers are quite unfamiliar with Unix or with C. As for TCP/IP > knowledge, well, since the IETF authors TCP/IP, yes, it is a > prerequisite. > >> Public policy experience counts for very little. > > You raise here an important point: public input on technical > standards. That is a difficult question since input on technical > standards must be technically informed (to be meaningful and useful) > and since there is no clear channel to gather this public opinion > (unless you engage in ICANN bluff such as public fora that are never > read and have exactly zero consequences; at least the IETF does not > pretend it listens to you). > > This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same > problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for > instance). > >> Secondly, it notoriously maintains the fiction that it is engaged in >> a purely technical exercise, > > We agree that nothing is "purely technical". > >> and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on >> policy questions. > > Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US > governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC. > >> The example that I always roll out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on >> Wiretapping (basically deciding that the IETF would not facilitate >> the interception of data by LEAs in the design of its protocols). > > Yes, very good document. > >> One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit >> of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through >> its own recommendations. > > Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and > which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning > Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all > its standards...) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 supprimé12000 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 04:46:31 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:46:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <01e701c86eea$020df190$0629d4b0$@net> References: <20080214090017.EB8B567894@smtp1.electricembers.net> <01e701c86eea$020df190$0629d4b0$@net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > enhanced cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the > responsibility > > of THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various > > * EC is very important - and there is extensive scope within the existing > mechanism for this. Spot on! I think the recent discussion about alleged over representativeness of certain groups in the MAG shows how willing to do EC they are! If we can't see this forest (EC) for the trees (whois on the MAG), well, we are back to shooting ourselves in the foot! Let me restate my original points in the previous thread as they relate to EC: 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, and are actively involved in doing EC by, inter alia, participating in the IGF and it's MAG. 2) Asking for the removal of a 4th stakeholder group, made up of CS folk only reduces the total number of CS in the MAG. I suggest this is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. 3) setting up a quota system for a group of observers or advisor's (after denying them full SH status) : 3a) means reducing the number of CS participants in the MAG. I suggest this is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. 3b) reduces the opportunities for EC. I suggest this is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. 3c) means that if we want quotas for one group, we would have to ask for quotas on govts, and biz as well. I suggest this is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole, see BD's point on this yesterday. > > * Trying to gain even soft oversight functions over ICANN is a nonstarter > and doesn't have much consensus here FULL ACK > > > > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both > > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that > > They were, and rightly so. I find it amazing that CS groups that already do > such a lot of this tend to play down its importance. violent agreement -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 14 05:52:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:22:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080214105329.817AA6781B@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim Though you have advised against our carrying on this discussion, there is something I just must comment on > 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet users) can be considered CS. Even by the definition you picked (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. Tell me one category in this definition where any body exercises direct and explicit (and not merely implicitly) power on any group/ community outside the body. Please do not misuse the term CS in this manner. I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be on these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the limit. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:17 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > enhanced cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the > > responsibility > > > of THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various > > > > * EC is very important - and there is extensive scope within the > existing > > mechanism for this. > > Spot on! I think the recent discussion about alleged over > representativeness of certain groups in the MAG shows how willing to > do EC they are! > > If we can't see this forest (EC) for the trees (whois on the MAG), > well, we are back to shooting ourselves in the foot! > > Let me restate my original points in the previous thread as they relate to > EC: > > 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, and are > actively involved in doing EC by, inter alia, participating in the IGF > and it's MAG. > > 2) Asking for the removal of a 4th stakeholder group, made up of CS > folk only reduces the total number of CS in the MAG. I suggest this > is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. > > 3) setting up a quota system for a group of observers or advisor's > (after denying them full SH status) : > > 3a) means reducing the number of CS participants in the MAG. I > suggest this is not a beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. > > 3b) reduces the opportunities for EC. I suggest this is not a > beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole. > > 3c) means that if we want quotas for one group, we would have to > ask for quotas on govts, and biz as well. I suggest this is not a > beneficial outcome for IGC and CS as a whole, see BD's point on this > yesterday. > > > > > * Trying to gain even soft oversight functions over ICANN is a > nonstarter > > and doesn't have much consensus here > > FULL ACK > > > > > > > > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for > both > > > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because > that > > > > They were, and rightly so. I find it amazing that CS groups that > already do > > such a lot of this tend to play down its importance. > > violent agreement > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 06:31:08 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:01:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214105329.817AA6781B@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080214105329.817AA6781B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <021a01c86efd$19a2a590$4ce7f0b0$@net> Parminder wrote: > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly > affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet > users) can be considered CS. Even by the definition you picked (at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. Bear in mind that these organizations have several people who are involved independently in CS. And are among the more sympathetic stakeholder groups, wrt CS goals and issues. If you alienate and exclude them from the definition of CS, you are, as McTim puts it, shooting yourself in the foot. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Thu Feb 14 07:38:33 2008 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:38:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms Message-ID: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021208A.shtml The Associated Press reports, "The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the September 11 terrorist attacks." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 07:54:02 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:54:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [14/02/08 13:38 +0100]: > Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021208A.shtml > The Associated Press reports, "The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from > lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop > on their customers without court permission after the September 11 > terrorist attacks." Please read some much more informed commentary on Dave Farber's IP list. Some that show you a bit more of the picture from both sides. Truthout is not what I would regard as a good or useful source for this - there's a very high liberal + anti establishment bias. I must admit, nor would I regard anything from moveon.org or the EFF when taking about the internet as anything other than propaganda .. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 14 08:23:08 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:23:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> Message-ID: >Riaz K Tayob [14/02/08 13:38 +0100]: >>Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms >>http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021208A.shtml >>The Associated Press reports, "The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from >>lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop >>on their customers without court permission after the September 11 >>terrorist attacks." > >Please read some much more informed commentary on Dave Farber's IP list. which you can find archived at (and the thread is quite interesting.) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 14 08:23:35 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:23:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Message-ID: <47B440D7.80405@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder Parminder wrote: > Bill > > >>I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues, >>which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a >>special reading of that language). > > > I mean, well let me be blunt, we need to know whats happening about enhanced > cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility of Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose to talk about EC per se. Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC proposal we'll need to get consensus on it. If people here do agree, it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try... A process suggestion: as more topics have been tossed into the pot piecemeal since you circulated your first draft statement, it's a little difficult to know just where we are. You might want to recirculate with with all the bits in one place and try to coordinate a structured discussion of each section sequentially. If you wait and pull a rabbit out of your hat too close to the due date, things could fall apart with objections to part a, b, c...just a thought. > > As for the whole thing being about IG issues and institutions, we know that > the workshops happen the whole thing is not about them. And also that a > focused examination of EC and other specific insituional requirement issues > is at a different level. I don't follow, but anyway in saying the IG forum should be about IG,I meant including the main sessions, which really have been more on general Internet issues than the actual conduct of collective governance vis those issues. You've agreed with me on this prior so probably we're talking past each other here. > > I don't understand your point on > >>Athens >>Rio, there was no overarching theme, really. > > > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that > really means nothing. But the fact was prominently displayed in all official > docs etc. I remember very clearly what they were about (?), and despite the development label on the program, as with IG, I did not actually hear much focused discussion about development per se in the main sessions, nor in most of the workshops I attended, which was part of why I did the development agenda ws. Words are losing meaning in the IGF... > >>Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec. >>maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing? > > > That was Milton's formulation though I largely agreed with it. Does my > placing EC in the centre of the formulation make it clearer? A lot of people > - Wolfgang, McTim on this list, and some others like in the IGF workshop at > Delhi ICANN meeting are suggesting that EC is what is actually happening > right now at the IGF. Lets examine this perspective also. Fine, propose it in a manner everyone can grok and we'll see if there's consensus. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 09:33:51 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:33:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214105329.817AA6781B@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080214105329.817AA6781B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Parminder wrote: > > McTim > > Though you have advised against our carrying on this discussion, there is > something I just must comment on > > > > 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, > > > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly > affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet users) > can be considered CS. Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers. They wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS, no? Every development NGO operating here in Uganda exercises power (who they feed, who gets their bed nets, what their education curriculum is, etc, etc) Are you suggesting that none of these is CS? Even by the definition you picked (at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. It passes in my book, and the LSE seems to agree with me! Where in any of the below definitions of CS does it mention the criteria of "not exercising(sic) power in realms that directly affect other people"? http://tinyurl.com/25jtfl admittedly, this is only the first 14 results on Google, and only in English, but all the Internet admin orgs I have ever worked with pass muster according to each of the 15 definitions I have offered. Tell me > one category in this definition where any body exercises direct and explicit > (and not merely implicitly) power on any group/ community outside the body. You mean these categories: "registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups"?? If so, I will pick one as you asked and give an example. Trade Unions, when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I would say that is an exercise of power. > Please do not misuse the term CS in this manner. see above 14 other definitions, I think it is you who are outside the mainstream in defining CS according to this criteria. > > I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be on > these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the > limit. So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Feb 14 10:56:22 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:56:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - Message-ID: I beg to differ with Suresh. 'Soft as a whisper' oversight of ICANN by IGF began in Athens. It was more explicit in Rio, and will continue in New Delhi. It's not a matter for consensus on this list or elsewhere, it's just what's happening. More debatable is how it evolves from there. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/14/08 4:14 AM >>> Parminder wrote: > enhanced cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility > of THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various * EC is very important - and there is extensive scope within the existing mechanism for this. * Trying to gain even soft oversight functions over ICANN is a nonstarter and doesn't have much consensus here > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that They were, and rightly so. I find it amazing that CS groups that already do such a lot of this tend to play down its importance. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 14 10:58:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:28:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> > > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly > > affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet > users) > > can be considered CS. > > Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a > non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers. They > wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS, > no? Exercising power in this case means exercising monopolistic power that one can not exclude oneself from. Trade Unions, > when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade > union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I > would say that is an exercise of power. I spoke of explicit and direct exercise of power (And I add as above the monopoly and non-excludability criterion). I know quite well every social actor exercises some kind of power. > So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this > group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? The limit I spoke of was about how far one can stretch the meaning of a term. You are free to believe what you will, but yes surely a CS group may want to reach an understanding of what is civil society for the purpose of membership of that group. We have had discussions on this list in the context of people with governments, or even about those that are included in gov delegations. Yes, of course there are "limits" in this context. And we have enforced them in the past. > > If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and > spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet > admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in > despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. You may spend your time exercising power anywhere, but as a civil society group we need to be able to seek accountability from organizations that exercise monopolistic power, and for that purpose they themselves cant be considered a part of CS. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > McTim > > > > Though you have advised against our carrying on this discussion, there > is > > something I just must comment on > > > > > > > 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, > > > > > > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly > > affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet > users) > > can be considered CS. > > Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a > non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers. They > wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS, > no? > > Every development NGO operating here in Uganda exercises power (who > they feed, who gets their bed nets, what their education curriculum > is, etc, etc) Are you suggesting that none of these is CS? > > Even by the definition you picked (at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. > > It passes in my book, and the LSE seems to agree with me! > > Where in any of the below definitions of CS does it mention the > criteria of "not exercising(sic) power in realms that directly > affect other people"? > > http://tinyurl.com/25jtfl > > admittedly, this is only the first 14 results on Google, and only in > English, but all the Internet admin orgs I have ever worked with pass > muster according to each of the 15 definitions I have offered. > > Tell me > > one category in this definition where any body exercises direct and > explicit > > (and not merely implicitly) power on any group/ community outside the > body. > > You mean these categories: > > "registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, > community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, > professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social > movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups"?? > > If so, I will pick one as you asked and give an example. Trade Unions, > when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade > union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I > would say that is an exercise of power. > > > Please do not misuse the term CS in this manner. > > see above 14 other definitions, I think it is you who are outside the > mainstream in defining CS according to this criteria. > > > > > I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be > on > > these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the > > limit. > > So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this > group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? > > If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and > spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet > admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in > despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 14 11:05:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:35:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <021a01c86efd$19a2a590$4ce7f0b0$@net> Message-ID: <20080214160603.E166CE1B94@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Parminder wrote: > > > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly > > affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet > > users) can be considered CS. Even by the definition you picked (at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. > > Bear in mind that these organizations have several people who are involved > independently in CS. And are among the more sympathetic stakeholder > groups, > wrt CS goals and issues. > > If you alienate and exclude them from the definition of CS, you are, as > McTim puts it, shooting yourself in the foot. > > srs But I thought I had made a clear distinction between some people involved with these organization (though their centrality to the power structure within these organizations will still be an important issue) being CS and these organizations themselves being considered a part of CS. Is there not a huge difference between these two formulations. Quoting myself from my email >I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be on >these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the limit 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 11:18:32 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:18:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Message-ID: <20080214161832.GA20907@hserus.net> Parminder [14/02/08 21:35 +0530]: >But I thought I had made a clear distinction between some people involved >with these organization (though their centrality to the power structure >within these organizations will still be an important issue) being CS and >these organizations themselves being considered a part of CS. Is there not >a huge difference between these two formulations. When you get a large number of the participants in these organizations (large enough to be a non trivial percentage of the participants) having solid CS credentials, and most of the rest with attitudes that approximate to "california liberal".. you might find it wiser to recognize those associations as CS A trade union for, say, an airport's air traffic control employees, or a city transit union with bus and metro rail drivers, has a similar monopolistic hold over services at a large airport or a city. Ever been in calcutta during one of those periodic bangla bandhs the communist govt affiliated trade unions love to call all the time? Your argument still doesnt hold. And even if it does its a dangerous trend you are advocating. And theres a slippery enough slope for other stakeholders to start excluding CS if you advocate such limits. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 14 11:49:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:19:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214161832.GA20907@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080214164943.A7A3FA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> > When you get a large number of the participants in these organizations > (large enough to be a non trivial percentage of the participants) having > solid CS credentials, and most of the rest with attitudes that approximate > to "california liberal".. you might find it wiser to recognize those > associations as CS Most immediately post colonial govs have majority participants having 'solid CS credential' - eg, India, and much more recently, S Africa. Are you inclined to consider these governments as a part of CS. Most Indian local gov bodies consist primarily of first timer non-professional politicians, should we call these local bodies civil society. Pl use some clearer criterion for CS. It certainly is important for those who take CS organizations and activity seriously. and most of the rest with attitudes that approximate > to "california liberal".. you might find it wiser to recognize those > associations as CS Good you referred to this ideology. I figure you mean 'Californian ideology'. I know most of them are of this ideology, and that's exactly my problem. Meanwhile it is amusing that you seem to expect me to accept them because you tell me that they are of this ideology. My problem is precisely with the neo-liberal slant of this ideology, and that through the representation of, what likes to be called, the tech community this ideology gets (illegitimately) over-represented in IG bodies, and gives strength to the pervasive neo-liberal march. I expect you to be surprised that most 'development' civil society bodies consider this neo-liberal onslaught as one of the primary issues to confront. > A trade union for, say, an airport's air traffic control employees, or a > city transit union with bus and metro rail drivers, has a similar > monopolistic hold over services at a large airport or a city. Ever been in > calcutta during one of those periodic bangla bandhs the communist govt > affiliated trade unions love to call all the time? But don't you consider all this exercise of power as illegitimate. Are you suggesting ICANN's power can similarly be considered illegitimate. > Your argument still doesnt hold. And even if it does its a dangerous trend > you are advocating. And theres a slippery enough slope for other > stakeholders to start excluding CS if you advocate such limits. But do you appreciate how slippery a slope you are putting world's CS sector and their activities and possible impact on, by such liberal abuse of the meaning of the term. Try speaking to any development NGO about this, or if you have more connections in developed countries any NGO involved with media reform activities, for instance. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:49 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > Parminder [14/02/08 21:35 +0530]: > >But I thought I had made a clear distinction between some people involved > >with these organization (though their centrality to the power structure > >within these organizations will still be an important issue) being CS and > >these organizations themselves being considered a part of CS. Is there > not > >a huge difference between these two formulations. > > When you get a large number of the participants in these organizations > (large enough to be a non trivial percentage of the participants) having > solid CS credentials, and most of the rest with attitudes that approximate > to "california liberal".. you might find it wiser to recognize those > associations as CS > > A trade union for, say, an airport's air traffic control employees, or a > city transit union with bus and metro rail drivers, has a similar > monopolistic hold over services at a large airport or a city. Ever been in > calcutta during one of those periodic bangla bandhs the communist govt > affiliated trade unions love to call all the time? > > Your argument still doesnt hold. And even if it does its a dangerous trend > you are advocating. And theres a slippery enough slope for other > stakeholders to start excluding CS if you advocate such limits. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 14 11:55:53 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214161832.GA20907@hserus.net> Message-ID: <019901c86f2a$7f0b3690$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> I think the issue here is whether CS is seen as a "category" (estate?) or as a "movement" (having shared values for example). The notion of CS in most LDC's and dare I say for most of those globally who identify with CS is certainly oriented towards the "movement" side of the ledger. When we start thinking (only) about institutional issues as seems to be the current pre-occupation with this group, then of course the matters of CS as a "category" seem to become most prominent. My major concern is that in presenting CS only as a "category" (for representational purposes) we seem to be losing sight of what motivates a lot of those with an active involvement in CS which is presenting and promoting our shared values (which we don't seem to be bringing to the fore very much and which could very much use a re-translation and re-articulation in the context of Internet Governance and ICT's overall... Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: February 14, 2008 8:19 AM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Parminder [14/02/08 21:35 +0530]: >But I thought I had made a clear distinction between some people >involved with these organization (though their centrality to the power >structure within these organizations will still be an important issue) >being CS and these organizations themselves being considered a part of >CS. Is there not a huge difference between these two formulations. When you get a large number of the participants in these organizations (large enough to be a non trivial percentage of the participants) having solid CS credentials, and most of the rest with attitudes that approximate to "california liberal".. you might find it wiser to recognize those associations as CS A trade union for, say, an airport's air traffic control employees, or a city transit union with bus and metro rail drivers, has a similar monopolistic hold over services at a large airport or a city. Ever been in calcutta during one of those periodic bangla bandhs the communist govt affiliated trade unions love to call all the time? Your argument still doesnt hold. And even if it does its a dangerous trend you are advocating. And theres a slippery enough slope for other stakeholders to start excluding CS if you advocate such limits. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 14 12:09:06 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:09:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47B475B2.4090200@wzb.eu> This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. Historically, civil society was understood to mean everything outside the realm of government. There are still quite a few authors who therefore regard the economy as part of civil society. Others want civil society be defined by its types or principles of action, i.e. non-violence. We should accept the fact that there are many concepts of civil society and that we lack the means to decide which of those is the best. Since many of those who participate in cs networks wear several hats and since the range of opinions here are so broad, I don't even see why a clear definition would matter. jeanette Parminder wrote: > >>> No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly >>> affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet >> users) >>> can be considered CS. >> Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a >> non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers. They >> wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS, >> no? > > Exercising power in this case means exercising monopolistic power that one > can not exclude oneself from. > > Trade Unions, >> when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade >> union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I >> would say that is an exercise of power. > > I spoke of explicit and direct exercise of power (And I add as above the > monopoly and non-excludability criterion). I know quite well every social > actor exercises some kind of power. > >> So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this >> group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? > > The limit I spoke of was about how far one can stretch the meaning of a > term. You are free to believe what you will, but yes surely a CS group may > want to reach an understanding of what is civil society for the purpose of > membership of that group. We have had discussions on this list in the > context of people with governments, or even about those that are included in > gov delegations. Yes, of course there are "limits" in this context. And we > have enforced them in the past. > >> If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and >> spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet >> admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in >> despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. > > You may spend your time exercising power anywhere, but as a civil society > group we need to be able to seek accountability from organizations that > exercise monopolistic power, and for that purpose they themselves cant be > considered a part of CS. > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:04 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Parminder >> wrote: >>> McTim >>> >>> Though you have advised against our carrying on this discussion, there >> is >>> something I just must comment on >>> >>> >>>> 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS, >>> >>> No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly >>> affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet >> users) >>> can be considered CS. >> Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a >> non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers. They >> wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS, >> no? >> >> Every development NGO operating here in Uganda exercises power (who >> they feed, who gets their bed nets, what their education curriculum >> is, etc, etc) Are you suggesting that none of these is CS? >> >> Even by the definition you picked (at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass. >> It passes in my book, and the LSE seems to agree with me! >> >> Where in any of the below definitions of CS does it mention the >> criteria of "not exercising(sic) power in realms that directly >> affect other people"? >> >> http://tinyurl.com/25jtfl >> >> admittedly, this is only the first 14 results on Google, and only in >> English, but all the Internet admin orgs I have ever worked with pass >> muster according to each of the 15 definitions I have offered. >> >> Tell me >>> one category in this definition where any body exercises direct and >> explicit >>> (and not merely implicitly) power on any group/ community outside the >> body. >> >> You mean these categories: >> >> "registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, >> community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, >> professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social >> movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups"?? >> >> If so, I will pick one as you asked and give an example. Trade Unions, >> when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade >> union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I >> would say that is an exercise of power. >> >>> Please do not misuse the term CS in this manner. >> see above 14 other definitions, I think it is you who are outside the >> mainstream in defining CS according to this criteria. >> >>> I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be >> on >>> these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the >>> limit. >> So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this >> group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? >> >> If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and >> spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet >> admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in >> despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 12:12:30 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:12:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this > > group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say? > > > The limit I spoke of was about how far one can stretch the meaning of a > term. You are free to believe what you will, but yes surely a CS group may > want to reach an understanding of what is civil society for the purpose of > membership of that group. We have had discussions on this list in the > context of people with governments, or even about those that are included in > gov delegations. Yes, of course there are "limits" in this context. And we > have enforced them in the past. > > > > > If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and > > spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet > > admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in > > despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC. > > > You may spend your time exercising power anywhere, but as a civil society > group we need to be able to seek accountability from organizations that > exercise monopolistic power, and for that purpose they themselves cant be > considered a part of CS. Well, of course I disagree. But IF you really think so, then you must, logically, admit them as a 4th stakeholder group! After all, if they aren't clearly animal, mineral or vegetable, they MUST be a new type of thing, and be given equal representation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Feb 14 13:26:33 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:26:33 +0100 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> Le 14 févr. 08 à 18:12, McTim a écrit : > But IF you really think so, then you must, logically, admit them as a > 4th stakeholder group! After all, if they aren't clearly animal, > mineral or vegetable, they MUST be a new type of thing, "the others", "the mutants", what exactly?! > and be given > equal representation. Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've to check this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive intentions, etc. Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the caucus with such points? Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC comments? Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Feb 14 17:26:00 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The Economist on technology in developing countries Message-ID: <321229.31764.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, The Economist recently ran a couple of articles - an opinion and a news piece - about technology in emerging economies that some may find interesting. See below. Cheers David Technology and development: The limits of leapfrogging-The spread of new technologies often depends on the availability of older ones Mobile phones are frequently held up as a good example of technology's ability to transform the fortunes of people in the developing world. In places with bad roads, few trains and parlous land lines, mobile phones substitute for travel, allow price data to be distributed more quickly and easily, enable traders to reach wider markets and generally make it easier to do business. The mobile phone is also a wonderful example of a “leapfrog” technology: it has enabled developing countries to skip the fixed-line technology of the 20th century and move straight to the mobile technology of the 21st. Surely other technologies can do the same? http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10650775 Technology in emerging economies: Of internet cafés and power cuts-Emerging economies are better at adopting new technologies than at putting them into widespread use Within a few months China will overtake America as the country with the world's largest number of internet users. Even when you factor in China's size and its astonishing rate of GDP growth, this will be a remarkable achievement for what remains a poor economy. For the past three years China has also been the world's largest exporter of information and communications technology (ICT). It already has the same number of mobile-phone users (500m) as the whole of Europe. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10640716 --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 17:58:56 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:58:56 -0800 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions In-Reply-To: <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080214225856.GB27654@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [14/02/08 19:26 +0100]: > Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've to check > this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive intentions, etc. > > Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the caucus > with such points? Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC comments? Away from a direction that is frankly dangerous. E&oe Parminders comments about a neo liberal bias pervading these groups, that's not really all that strange an attitude for any american CS group at all. What would you prefer instead, that they be neocons + war / anti-terrorism hawks before they are allowed to join the exalted ranks of "global CS"? suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Feb 14 18:18:22 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9daction_Lettre_d'IRIS?=) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:18:22 +0100 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions In-Reply-To: <20080214225856.GB27654@hserus.net> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> <20080214225856.GB27654@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3E5A3A5C-8B41-4A20-894F-60207C46E71B@ras.eu.org> Le 14 févr. 08 à 23:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki [14/02/08 19:26 +0100]: >> Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've >> to check this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive >> intentions, etc. >> >> Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the >> caucus with such points? Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC >> comments? > > Away from a direction that is frankly dangerous. E&oe Parminders > comments > about a neo liberal bias pervading these groups, that's not really > all that > strange an attitude for any american CS group at all. What would > you prefer > instead, that they be neocons + war / anti-terrorism hawks before > they are > allowed to join the exalted ranks of "global CS"? OK, as it is already past-midnight (Paris time), I'll be lazzy and simply quote Parminder's answer to you, since it perfectly works for me too (and since Parminder expresses himself in English better than I do:)): " it is amusing that you seem to expect me to accept them because you tell me that they are of this ideology. My problem is precisely with the neo-liberal slant of this ideology, and that through the representation of, what likes to be called, the tech community this ideology gets (illegitimately) over-represented in IG bodies, and gives strength to the pervasive neo-liberal march. I expect you to be surprised that most 'development' civil society bodies consider this neo-liberal onslaught as one of the primary issues to confront." Let me add to the last sentence that it's also the case for many organizations based in developed countries, including mine in France. Best, Meryem PS. I was right in changing the subject of this thread: weird things seems happening here:) -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris - France ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 14 18:53:05 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:53:05 -0800 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions In-Reply-To: <3E5A3A5C-8B41-4A20-894F-60207C46E71B@ras.eu.org> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> <20080214225856.GB27654@hserus.net> <3E5A3A5C-8B41-4A20-894F-60207C46E71B@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080214235305.GA28164@hserus.net> R?daction Lettre d'IRIS [15/02/08 00:18 +0100]: > OK, as it is already past-midnight (Paris time), I'll be lazzy and simply > quote Parminder's answer to you, since it perfectly works for me too (and > since Parminder expresses himself in English better than I do:)): I know other country CS people consider some of their ideologies na�ve. Or even dangerous. But as I said, in at least some cases, it produces results that mainstream CS would approve of. Or maybe reject as not having asked for govt consensus, like Jeremy complaining about that IETF code of ethics not to write protocols for spying not getting any input from CS. First exclude them, dismiss some of their ideology. And then complain they dont take any input from CS. I find that a touch ironic, but then it is way too early here, my 3 year old daughter woke me up at 4 AM and I just cant get back to sleep when woken up that ealry. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 15 01:53:29 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:53:29 +0300 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> References: <20080214155926.15DBAA6D1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <021DC498-8914-44FE-85F1-391D4A387D8D@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 14 févr. 08 à 18:12, McTim a écrit : > > > But IF you really think so, then you must, logically, admit them as a > > 4th stakeholder group! After all, if they aren't clearly animal, > > mineral or vegetable, they MUST be a new type of thing, > > "the others", "the mutants", what exactly?! If you'd like a list, it just so happens that I have a sample available. The RIPE community decided last year to begin a Enhanced Cooperation Task Force. I thought it might be useful to look at the number of gov't folk that participated in that community pre- vs. post WSIS. Seems that there wasn't any significant differences in the pre and post samples, but it did leave me with a list of folk who are non-profit, non-business and non-governmental, all of whom are keen to promote public interest in Internet policy making. The following are groups (mainly of EU origins) whose reps attended one single meeting (RIPE 55) in 2007 (NB: all duplicates removed, full list of attendees of RIPE meetings available at ripe.net.): .SE ACONET AFNIC AfriNIC AMS-IX APNIC ARIN Autonomica AB Caspur CERN - European Organization for CZ.NIC DENIC eG DFN Verein DK Hostmaster A/S DNS BE DNS-Belgium Euro-IX HEAnet ICANN ICM, Warsaw University Internet Systems Consortium JANET-CERT Japan Network Information Center Japan Registry Services Co.,Ltd. KTHNOC/Sunet Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan LACNIC LINX LITNET LONAP Ltd London Internet Exchange MANDA Merit Network MIX - Milan Internet eXchange NaMeX NETNOD Internet Exchange nic.at NIKHEF NIX.CZ NLnet Labs Nominet UK Packet Clearing House RENATER RIPE NCC Royal Institute of Technology SIDN Southwest Research Institute SWITCH Technical Chamber of Greece TERENA The Spamhaus Project TOP-IX UKERNA UNINETT UniVie / ACOnet / VIX So it's not just ICANN/ISOC/IETF, etc that we are talking about. The above is a small snapshot, the global picture is, of course, much larger. > > > and be given > > equal representation. > > Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've to > check this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive intentions, etc. > > Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the > caucus with such points? Ideally, I'd like to take the caucus to the places (lists and meetings) where I have participated in Internet administration. However, since I have been tilting at that particular windmill for quite a while with little success, for the purpose of this discussion, I will settle for some reality based, logical thinking. There are hundreds of Non-PS, non-gov't, non-profit groups around the world who do Internet administration/coordination/communication and policy making. Many of them built and help run the Internet. IF we as a group recognize there are non-governmental, non-PS organisations who participate in Internet administration/coordination/communication and policy making AND we deny that they are CS bodies, then we MUST allow that they constitute a 4th SH grouping. The realpolitik of the situation AFAIK is that this 4th group has already been enshrined in the pantheon of the MAG. To say they shouldn't exist as a 4th group, AND to say that they are not "pure enough CS" to be considered as CS, but we will throw them a bone and give them a quota of 6 seats is, at best, self- defeating. Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC > comments? I have already signified that I am ok with the majority of the statement. I would rather the caucus make no statement than say something that is illogical, self-denying and ultimately self-defeating. Removing references to the section that offends some would be the ideal situation under the circumstance. Otherwise, the coordinators can call rough consensus on the statement and then we go through the appeal process if there is an appeal. My reading of the charter makes me think that voting is only for leadership roles, but I may be mistaken. I must say that impugning ones motives does not impress. In the archives, you can find posts where I have made my agenda, motivations and reasons for participating on this list clear. I have always been upfront about this, and wish that others would be as forthcoming. AFAIK, we as a group have taken no stance against "neo-liberalism". I don't even know what it means, nor do I care. I only care that whatever we help build is as good as what we have, and that it helps bring more folk online while prtecting the traditional values of the Internet (end2end, bottom-up, etc). If that is neo-liberal, I will proudly wear the label. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Feb 15 08:01:02 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:01:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080213163611.9F8C5A6C45@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080213163611.9F8C5A6C45@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47B58D0E.6090106@panos-ao.org> Hi all I can see that the discussion on the the internet technical community is very lively... my two cents on these discussions. I acknowledge the great and unique impact of that community on the past and on-going development of the internet but my personal point of view is that we cannot consider that community as a fourth stakeholder group which deserves equal representation in the MAG, like the classic more or less well defined three types of stakeholders. Mainly because this group of people is/can be already present in all the others, like academia. In the same time, we can't say they won't be formally and specifically part of the MAG, due to the key role they play and have in relation to IG. A proposal is that we have a group of Technical IG Advisers (TIGAs :-) as we have other advisors. If we have 40 members for the MAG, 4 TIGAs may be appointed/included and the other stakeholders will provide 12 each (ideally). (Maybe it's appropriate now to redefine what CS is. Not along with this discussion, if not we might waist time (regarding the adoption of a text). Because there are many concepts of CS and the old classic definition is no more totally valid since some private sector stakeholders may claim there are within the CS.) Other comments on the renewal of the MAG (reaction to the text Parminder proposed on 11 February): I agree it's good to recommend the Secretariat to use "MAG" instead of "AG"; that IGF Secretariat funds at least 5 least developed and developing country stakeholders for open consultations; agree that the working methods and decision making procedures of the MAG should be more clearly defined; I like the idea of having working groups within the MAG. I would even propose that starting from now, half of the MAG members should rotate each year, but maybe 1/3 is wiser. SG Advisers in the MAG's role and the status of their contributions in MAG discussions should also be more clearly precised. Having only one Chair and a second deputy Chair (from the host country) is a good option. Finally I think funding participation of *all* CS members and developing country private sector members of the MAG is required. Regards Ken L ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 08:22:00 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:22:00 -0800 Subject: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c86fd5$c02952f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> McTim and all I'm sure that all of these folks listed below are most estimable and public spirited but probably would be as reflective ideologically of their own societies as any random sample would be i.e. no more (or less) supportive of a Civil Society position on issues of global institutional governance (or anything else) as any queue on a public street. What you/those folks mean by "Internet policy making" is I would guess the kind of "policy" that one would find in a normal network management operations manual -- I googled "network management policy" and this was the first thing that popped up was http://www.bitpipe.com/data/web/bp/netmgmt/netmgmt_tutorial.jsp ... Not much there that is recognizable to most of the folks discussing Internet governance policy here (or at the IGF) I would guess. Surely someone somewhere has access to a grad student who could quickly put together maybe two Internet governance glossaries one covering the technical details and the other covering the institutional ones with some sort of notation to separate the different meanings given to the common terms and eliminate some of these dialogues of the deaf. MG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: February 14, 2008 10:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 14 févr. 08 à 18:12, McTim a écrit : > > > But IF you really think so, then you must, logically, admit them as > a > 4th stakeholder group! After all, if they aren't clearly animal, > > mineral or vegetable, they MUST be a new type of thing, > > "the others", "the mutants", what exactly?! If you'd like a list, it just so happens that I have a sample available. The RIPE community decided last year to begin a Enhanced Cooperation Task Force. I thought it might be useful to look at the number of gov't folk that participated in that community pre- vs. post WSIS. Seems that there wasn't any significant differences in the pre and post samples, but it did leave me with a list of folk who are non-profit, non-business and non-governmental, all of whom are keen to promote public interest in Internet policy making. The following are groups (mainly of EU origins) whose reps attended one single meeting (RIPE 55) in 2007 (NB: all duplicates removed, full list of attendees of RIPE meetings available at ripe.net.): .SE ACONET AFNIC AfriNIC AMS-IX APNIC ARIN Autonomica AB Caspur CERN - European Organization for CZ.NIC DENIC eG DFN Verein DK Hostmaster A/S DNS BE DNS-Belgium Euro-IX HEAnet ICANN ICM, Warsaw University Internet Systems Consortium JANET-CERT Japan Network Information Center Japan Registry Services Co.,Ltd. KTHNOC/Sunet Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan LACNIC LINX LITNET LONAP Ltd London Internet Exchange MANDA Merit Network MIX - Milan Internet eXchange NaMeX NETNOD Internet Exchange nic.at NIKHEF NIX.CZ NLnet Labs Nominet UK Packet Clearing House RENATER RIPE NCC Royal Institute of Technology SIDN Southwest Research Institute SWITCH Technical Chamber of Greece TERENA The Spamhaus Project TOP-IX UKERNA UNINETT UniVie / ACOnet / VIX So it's not just ICANN/ISOC/IETF, etc that we are talking about. The above is a small snapshot, the global picture is, of course, much larger. > > > and be given > > equal representation. > > Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've to > check this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive intentions, > etc. > > Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the > caucus with such points? Ideally, I'd like to take the caucus to the places (lists and meetings) where I have participated in Internet administration. However, since I have been tilting at that particular windmill for quite a while with little success, for the purpose of this discussion, I will settle for some reality based, logical thinking. There are hundreds of Non-PS, non-gov't, non-profit groups around the world who do Internet administration/coordination/communication and policy making. Many of them built and help run the Internet. IF we as a group recognize there are non-governmental, non-PS organisations who participate in Internet administration/coordination/communication and policy making AND we deny that they are CS bodies, then we MUST allow that they constitute a 4th SH grouping. The realpolitik of the situation AFAIK is that this 4th group has already been enshrined in the pantheon of the MAG. To say they shouldn't exist as a 4th group, AND to say that they are not "pure enough CS" to be considered as CS, but we will throw them a bone and give them a quota of 6 seats is, at best, self- defeating. Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC > comments? I have already signified that I am ok with the majority of the statement. I would rather the caucus make no statement than say something that is illogical, self-denying and ultimately self-defeating. Removing references to the section that offends some would be the ideal situation under the circumstance. Otherwise, the coordinators can call rough consensus on the statement and then we go through the appeal process if there is an appeal. My reading of the charter makes me think that voting is only for leadership roles, but I may be mistaken. I must say that impugning ones motives does not impress. In the archives, you can find posts where I have made my agenda, motivations and reasons for participating on this list clear. I have always been upfront about this, and wish that others would be as forthcoming. AFAIK, we as a group have taken no stance against "neo-liberalism". I don't even know what it means, nor do I care. I only care that whatever we help build is as good as what we have, and that it helps bring more folk online while prtecting the traditional values of the Internet (end2end, bottom-up, etc). If that is neo-liberal, I will proudly wear the label. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 15 09:08:04 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:38:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <20080214164943.A7A3FA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All Sorry for making this email high priority. It contains some text for a possible caucus statement on improving the IGF format for Delhi, which needs some urgent attention from the members, and I wanted it to separate it from the other interesting discussions taking place on the list. At this time we propose to make three statement - one on MAG renewal, some text of which is already being discussed, another on our suggestions for improvements in format for Delhi, some text for which is given below, and a third one with a few possible themes for the main sessions. For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick to fewer things rather than give a long list. The main thing is to make the plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear workshops structure around it. And that its preparation should be more through and facilitated by dedicated working groups. I will add other things, like a real lunch break to the text in the next stage. (starts) (Opening pleasantries are yet to be drafted.) In providing suggestions for how New Delhi IGF should be organized, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus understands that the IGF's mandate and functions can be divided into two broad categories. One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the global policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. Many participants at Athens and Rio felt that there were too many workshops going on at the same time, even overlapping with the plenaries, and the attendance at and the interest in plenaries was quite low. It was even more so in Rio than in Athens. This severely compromises the 'convergent identity' of the IGF, as one global forum with some discernable internal cohesion, apart from just being an open space encouraging diverse deliberation. One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, or perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, which is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is to some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime time for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year. We should therefore seriously explore new possibilities that could put life back into the plenaries and allow the IGF to meet its outcome-oriented part of the mandate as well. First is the issue of the large number of workshops. We do understand that limiting the number of workshops too drastically will affect the diversity of the kinds of discussions that are held, and of the groups that are able to use the IGF space. Therefore we think that we should continue to allow as many workshops as the limits of available logistics allow, to encourage diversity and broader ownership and participation in the IGF. In order to address what, in this context of allowing the maximum number of workshops, appears to be a conflicting imperative of strengthening the plenaries, for the sake of an 'convergent identity' of the IGF (as opposed to the divergent identity built by multiple workshops) and improving its outcome-orientation, we may need to bring a two-pronged approach to organizing the IG. One approach is of allowing multiple diverse workshops, as is done at present, while keeping some general themes in mind, so as to not allow things to go too much out of IGF's domain and priority areas. These workshops can be called type A workshops, and the current main themes of access, openness, diversity and security can serve as over-arching themes for organizing these workshops in clusters, so that each stream can stay separate, enabling people interested in any one theme to attend all or most of the workshops in that theme. For making the plenaries more productive, they should be organized around some specific global public policy issues, which are found to be of utmost importance, and not around hold-all themes like openness and access, discussions around which do not produce any fruitful outcomes. We suggest some such topics in a separate statement. A lot of preparatory work should go into preparing for these discussions, which should be done through working groups set up for these purpose. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. These working groups must also synthesize the outcomes of these deliberations and present them as a document. Some workshops - called type B - should be arranged around the selected topics for the plenaries. There should be a limited number of them, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the plenary sessions. Selection of and preparation for these workshops should be done by the concerned working group along with the sponsors of the workshops. Type B workshops should not be held in parallel with the plenaries. This dual architecture of an open space for diverse workshops and a relatively tightly organized structure of plenaries on specific global public policy, well-organized through a working group, and also resulting in an outcome document (even if stating a variety of positions, and not a consensual or negotiated one position) will enable the IGF to fulfill its mandate in a much better way than it is able to do at present. We understand that such dual tiered workshop structure - one kind of workshops tied with plenary topics, and others independent - was proposed and tried in preparation for Rio, but apparently it did not quite work out in any purposeful manner. We can get it right this time around with better selection of specific topics for the plenaries, and more through preparations through dedicated working groups. (I wan to put some text of dynamic coalitions here.. Will prepare some and add. Inputs are welcome.) (ends) 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Feb 15 12:41:48 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:41:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD (26-30 May 2008) Message-ID: <200802151740.m1FHelMd018737@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members' listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: "Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment" - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: "Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research" More information coming soon. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: provagenda.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Feb 15 21:51:10 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:51:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <495D0005-5612-49FE-A2C9-85FCC729B1BA@Malcolm.id.au> On 15/02/2008, at 11:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick > to fewer things rather than give a long list. The main thing is to > make the plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear > workshops structure around it. And that its preparation should be > more through and facilitated by dedicated working groups. > Thanks Parminder. Hopefully this will be seen as constructive rather than critical, but I found this submission a little weak. It accurately diagnoses the problem, but the main concrete suggestion to address it is to take the same approach as in Rio of distinguishing between thematic and general workshops (only to do it better this time). Since the only other suggestion, to discuss more focussed topics in the plenaries, is to be dealt with in a separate submission, this leaves the present submission a little lacking. Perhaps it could be made stronger, without adopting more contentious recommendations, by a bit of reorganisation so that the most significant reforms you suggest are put first. As I see it, the most significant reform of all that you recommend is that workshops be organised by working groups drawn from stakeholders and MAG members, to ensure their relevance and focus. Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on the policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable setting (rather than a seminar setting). At present, only the views of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to ask questions - are ever aired. There must also be a formal mechanism by which for the output of dynamic coalitions to be injected into the plenary sessions. The "Reporting Back" sessions do not suffice for this. Instead, the dynamic coalition should be involved in the preparation of the plenary session to which their work relates, and thus be given an opportunity to shape its format and to suggest topics around which for the moderator to guide discussion. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 22:06:27 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:06:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080214164943.A7A3FA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050802151906h41f4ef68n6bb9795bb8ea09d2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, and greetings All: Your post is so very comprehensive... thanking you much for the information and insights. An aspect I would like to participate in is "remote" access and related topics so we really expand the "attendee" list via e-attendance. On review of the many materials I gathered while attending online throughout Rio IGF-II, I hope these experiences may help for New Delhi. The facilities were really quite productive even in the face of need/desire to expand (Thx Jeremy) and the people, on the human side of "man"/machine interfaces, were really super too .. and in real time (Avri, Adam, others made themselves e-available) among others including those here. With best wishes and appreciation of the reports and great progress, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* Program of the Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N; online ARPAnet forward; original programmer, GML starter set, forerunner of HTML; colleague and friend to those here; other affiliations on request. On 2/15/08, Parminder wrote: > > > Hi All > > Sorry for making this email high priority. It contains some text for a > possible caucus statement on improving the IGF format for Delhi, which > needs > some urgent attention from the members, and I wanted it to separate it > from > the other interesting discussions taking place on the list. > > At this time we propose to make three statement - one on MAG renewal, some > text of which is already being discussed, another on our suggestions for > improvements in format for Delhi, some text for which is given below, and > a > third one with a few possible themes for the main sessions. > > For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick to > fewer > things rather than give a long list. The main thing is to make the > plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear workshops > structure around it. And that its preparation should be more through and > facilitated by dedicated working groups. > > I will add other things, like a real lunch break to the text in the next > stage. > > (starts) > > (Opening pleasantries are yet to be drafted.) > > In providing suggestions for how New Delhi IGF should be organized, Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus understands that the IGF's mandate and > functions can be divided into two broad categories. One is of providing an > open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the > Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging > a closer > interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to > each > other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the > category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities > in > the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in > terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global > institutional > framework in this area. > > The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these > purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and > IGF > is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where > anyone > can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements > for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the > global policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements > for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting > character. > > Many participants at Athens and Rio felt that there were too many > workshops > going on at the same time, even overlapping with the plenaries, and the > attendance at and the interest in plenaries was quite low. It was even > more > so in Rio than in Athens. This severely compromises the 'convergent > identity' of the IGF, as one global forum with some discernable internal > cohesion, apart from just being an open space encouraging diverse > deliberation. > > One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too > many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, > or > perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were > just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of > these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to > make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue > under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were > remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, > which > is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is > to > some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and > openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime > time > for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year. > > We should therefore seriously explore new possibilities that could put > life > back into the plenaries and allow the IGF to meet its outcome-oriented > part > of the mandate as well. > > First is the issue of the large number of workshops. We do understand that > limiting the number of workshops too drastically will affect the diversity > of the kinds of discussions that are held, and of the groups that are able > to use the IGF space. Therefore we think that we should continue to allow > as > many workshops as the limits of available logistics allow, to encourage > diversity and broader ownership and participation in the IGF. > > In order to address what, in this context of allowing the maximum number > of > workshops, appears to be a conflicting imperative of strengthening the > plenaries, for the sake of an 'convergent identity' of the IGF (as opposed > to the divergent identity built by multiple workshops) and improving its > outcome-orientation, we may need to bring a two-pronged approach to > organizing the IG. > > One approach is of allowing multiple diverse workshops, as is done at > present, while keeping some general themes in mind, so as to not allow > things to go too much out of IGF's domain and priority areas. These > workshops can be called type A workshops, and the current main themes of > access, openness, diversity and security can serve as over-arching themes > for organizing these workshops in clusters, so that each stream can stay > separate, enabling people interested in any one theme to attend all or > most > of the workshops in that theme. > > For making the plenaries more productive, they should be organized around > some specific global public policy issues, which are found to be of utmost > importance, and not around hold-all themes like openness and access, > discussions around which do not produce any fruitful outcomes. We suggest > some such topics in a separate statement. A lot of preparatory work should > go into preparing for these discussions, which should be done through > working groups set up for these purpose. These working groups could > consist > of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. These > working groups must also synthesize the outcomes of these deliberations > and > present them as a document. > > Some workshops - called type B - should be arranged around the selected > topics for the plenaries. There should be a limited number of them, with a > vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that > preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different > viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of > the plenary sessions. Selection of and preparation for these workshops > should be done by the concerned working group along with the sponsors of > the > workshops. Type B workshops should not be held in parallel with the > plenaries. > > This dual architecture of an open space for diverse workshops and a > relatively tightly organized structure of plenaries on specific global > public policy, well-organized through a working group, and also resulting > in > an outcome document (even if stating a variety of positions, and not a > consensual or negotiated one position) will enable the IGF to fulfill its > mandate in a much better way than it is able to do at present. > > We understand that such dual tiered workshop structure - one kind of > workshops tied with plenary topics, and others independent - was proposed > and tried in preparation for Rio, but apparently it did not quite work out > in any purposeful manner. We can get it right this time around with > better > selection of specific topics for the plenaries, and more through > preparations through dedicated working groups. > > (I wan to put some text of dynamic coalitions here.. Will prepare some and > add. Inputs are welcome.) > > (ends) > > 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 Sat Feb 16 00:44:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:14:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <495D0005-5612-49FE-A2C9-85FCC729B1BA@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20080216054458.94C0167833@smtp1.electricembers.net> I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for Rio. Of them the CIRs theme was accepted. Proposed statement of substantive themes (Starts) As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the plenaries and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. (3-4 more themes can be added here) (ends) Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some text We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we may need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss it. If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more specific topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more specific issues. We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get through the whole process. Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote the Swiss gov's contribution. " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF should not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and free and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the discussions should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting of a group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when governments are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too cautious etc... Parminder 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC's contribution to Rio agenda 0507.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 16 00:45:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:15:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <45ed74050802151906h41f4ef68n6bb9795bb8ea09d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080216054624.2B6806781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Yes, Linda, we will add appropriate text on improving online participation. Parminder _____ From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:36 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process Dear Parminder, and greetings All: Your post is so very comprehensive... thanking you much for the information and insights. An aspect I would like to participate in is "remote" access and related topics so we really expand the "attendee" list via e-attendance. On review of the many materials I gathered while attending online throughout Rio IGF-II, I hope these experiences may help for New Delhi. The facilities were really quite productive even in the face of need/desire to expand (Thx Jeremy) and the people, on the human side of "man"/machine interfaces, were really super too .. and in real time (Avri, Adam, others made themselves e-available) among others including those here. With best wishes and appreciation of the reports and great progress, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* Program of the Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N; online ARPAnet forward; original programmer, GML starter set, forerunner of HTML; colleague and friend to those here; other affiliations on request. On 2/15/08, Parminder wrote: Hi All Sorry for making this email high priority. It contains some text for a possible caucus statement on improving the IGF format for Delhi, which needs some urgent attention from the members, and I wanted it to separate it from the other interesting discussions taking place on the list. At this time we propose to make three statement - one on MAG renewal, some text of which is already being discussed, another on our suggestions for improvements in format for Delhi, some text for which is given below, and a third one with a few possible themes for the main sessions. For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick to fewer things rather than give a long list. The main thing is to make the plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear workshops structure around it. And that its preparation should be more through and facilitated by dedicated working groups. I will add other things, like a real lunch break to the text in the next stage. (starts) (Opening pleasantries are yet to be drafted.) In providing suggestions for how New Delhi IGF should be organized, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus understands that the IGF's mandate and functions can be divided into two broad categories. One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the global policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. Many participants at Athens and Rio felt that there were too many workshops going on at the same time, even overlapping with the plenaries, and the attendance at and the interest in plenaries was quite low. It was even more so in Rio than in Athens. This severely compromises the 'convergent identity' of the IGF, as one global forum with some discernable internal cohesion, apart from just being an open space encouraging diverse deliberation. One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, or perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, which is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is to some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime time for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year. We should therefore seriously explore new possibilities that could put life back into the plenaries and allow the IGF to meet its outcome-oriented part of the mandate as well. First is the issue of the large number of workshops. We do understand that limiting the number of workshops too drastically will affect the diversity of the kinds of discussions that are held, and of the groups that are able to use the IGF space. Therefore we think that we should continue to allow as many workshops as the limits of available logistics allow, to encourage diversity and broader ownership and participation in the IGF. In order to address what, in this context of allowing the maximum number of workshops, appears to be a conflicting imperative of strengthening the plenaries, for the sake of an 'convergent identity' of the IGF (as opposed to the divergent identity built by multiple workshops) and improving its outcome-orientation, we may need to bring a two-pronged approach to organizing the IG. One approach is of allowing multiple diverse workshops, as is done at present, while keeping some general themes in mind, so as to not allow things to go too much out of IGF's domain and priority areas. These workshops can be called type A workshops, and the current main themes of access, openness, diversity and security can serve as over-arching themes for organizing these workshops in clusters, so that each stream can stay separate, enabling people interested in any one theme to attend all or most of the workshops in that theme. For making the plenaries more productive, they should be organized around some specific global public policy issues, which are found to be of utmost importance, and not around hold-all themes like openness and access, discussions around which do not produce any fruitful outcomes. We suggest some such topics in a separate statement. A lot of preparatory work should go into preparing for these discussions, which should be done through working groups set up for these purpose. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. These working groups must also synthesize the outcomes of these deliberations and present them as a document. Some workshops - called type B - should be arranged around the selected topics for the plenaries. There should be a limited number of them, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the plenary sessions. Selection of and preparation for these workshops should be done by the concerned working group along with the sponsors of the workshops. Type B workshops should not be held in parallel with the plenaries. This dual architecture of an open space for diverse workshops and a relatively tightly organized structure of plenaries on specific global public policy, well-organized through a working group, and also resulting in an outcome document (even if stating a variety of positions, and not a consensual or negotiated one position) will enable the IGF to fulfill its mandate in a much better way than it is able to do at present. We understand that such dual tiered workshop structure - one kind of workshops tied with plenary topics, and others independent - was proposed and tried in preparation for Rio, but apparently it did not quite work out in any purposeful manner. We can get it right this time around with better selection of specific topics for the plenaries, and more through preparations through dedicated working groups. (I wan to put some text of dynamic coalitions here.. Will prepare some and add. Inputs are welcome.) (ends) 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 guru at itforchange.net Sat Feb 16 01:31:41 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:01:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <20080216054458.94C0167833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080216063200.7BEE5A6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> In the 'openness' theme I would like to propose the specific issue of 'Network Neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers of the Internet' Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. Regards Guru -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Importance: High I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for Rio. Of them the CIRs theme was accepted. Proposed statement of substantive themes (Starts) As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the plenaries and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. (3-4 more themes can be added here) (ends) Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some text We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we may need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss it. If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more specific topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more specific issues. We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get through the whole process. Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote the Swiss gov's contribution. " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF should not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and free and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the discussions should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting of a group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when governments are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too cautious etc... Parminder Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 16 01:30:31 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:00:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <495D0005-5612-49FE-A2C9-85FCC729B1BA@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20080216063108.E35B6E0526@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Thanks Parminder. Hopefully this will be seen as constructive rather > than critical, but I found this submission a little weak. Well, I must almost thank you for describing it weak, it may enhance its acceptability among some :). On a more serious note, as you recommend, I would have liked to make a bolder opening and right away mention the points we are really making. But it is a diplomatic practice to start with nice words and come to your main points in a round about manner. And we as a group, at least many among us, I think are quite circumspect to mention things which may even remotely sound like frontal criticism of how IGF/ MAG conducts its business. In fact, governments are perhaps bolder in this respect. Even the Northern govs who generally are more conservative about IGF agenda and possibilities. The swiss doc (my current favorite) starts with " Still, we believe that the IGF has not yet fully exploited its potential." But yes, I do think the doc may be too long for the 3-4 specific points it is making, and we may need to edit it down. I will try and re-organise it. but the main concrete suggestion to > address it is to take the same approach as in Rio of distinguishing > between thematic and general workshops (only to do it better this > time). In Rio, the distinction was almost not there, other than perhaps in the workshop selection process, and a bit about which session one could report back in - which process was rather disorganized and I think finally anyone could report back in any session. And, yes, all workshops of one theme were slotted in manner that there was no overlap. I am speaking here of WGs preparing for the plenary and the thematic workshops together, establishing clear connections between them, including feeding in the outcomes of workshops into the plenaries. WGs will also synthesize an outcome document for each plenary subject. > Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed > either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on the > policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable > setting (rather than a seminar setting). At present, only the views > of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to ask > questions - are ever aired. Most round tables have limited number of participants. What kind of round table do you suggest here. Can you pl clarify. > There must also be a formal mechanism by which for the output of > dynamic coalitions to be injected into the plenary sessions. The > "Reporting Back" sessions do not suffice for this. Instead, the > dynamic coalition should be involved in the preparation of the plenary > session to which their work relates, and thus be given an opportunity > to shape its format and to suggest topics around which for the > moderator to guide discussion. Yes, we can put this into the dynamic coalitions part which will be added to the draft as circulated now. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:21 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process > > On 15/02/2008, at 11:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick > > to fewer things rather than give a long list. The main thing is to > > make the plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear > > workshops structure around it. And that its preparation should be > > more through and facilitated by dedicated working groups. > > > > Thanks Parminder. Hopefully this will be seen as constructive rather > than critical, but I found this submission a little weak. It > accurately diagnoses the problem, but the main concrete suggestion to > address it is to take the same approach as in Rio of distinguishing > between thematic and general workshops (only to do it better this > time). Since the only other suggestion, to discuss more focussed > topics in the plenaries, is to be dealt with in a separate submission, > this leaves the present submission a little lacking. > > Perhaps it could be made stronger, without adopting more contentious > recommendations, by a bit of reorganisation so that the most > significant reforms you suggest are put first. As I see it, the most > significant reform of all that you recommend is that workshops be > organised by working groups drawn from stakeholders and MAG members, > to ensure their relevance and focus. > > Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed > either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on the > policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable > setting (rather than a seminar setting). At present, only the views > of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to ask > questions - are ever aired. > > There must also be a formal mechanism by which for the output of > dynamic coalitions to be injected into the plenary sessions. The > "Reporting Back" sessions do not suffice for this. Instead, the > dynamic coalition should be involved in the preparation of the plenary > session to which their work relates, and thus be given an opportunity > to shape its format and to suggest topics around which for the > moderator to guide discussion. > > -- > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 16 01:49:36 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:49:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process In-Reply-To: <495D0005-5612-49FE-A2C9-85FCC729B1BA@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 16/02/2008, at 3:30 PM, Parminder wrote: >> Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed >> either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on >> the >> policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable >> setting (rather than a seminar setting). At present, only the views >> of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to >> ask >> questions - are ever aired. > > Most round tables have limited number of participants. What kind of > round > table do you suggest here. Can you pl clarify. Well I've gone on record before[0] to say that the speed dialogues would have been worth giving a try. Short of that (but along similar lines), the moderator could simply ask the room to divide itself up into ad hoc groups in the second half of the plenary session, give them some pens and paper, and ask them to brainstorm on an disputed issue that has arisen during the first half. The moderator, perhaps with an assistant or two, could make their way around the groups to help those that need it. At the conclusion, a member of each group could stand up and outline its discussions, which the moderator could synthesize onto a whiteboard or projection screen, and the groups' sheets of paper could be scanned and archived as a further record of the progress made. This is not actually revolutionary stuff; it's been done many times before. [0] http://www.intgovforum.org/includes/Submission%20to%20September%202007%20consultation.pdf -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 16 08:10:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:40:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <47B440D7.80405@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <20080216131125.61D61E04CB@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill > Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose > to talk about EC per se. Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC > proposal we'll need to get consensus on it. If people here do agree, > it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try... Anything of substance and any real public policy issue (the main mandate of IGF to discuss) apparently will be a hard sell with MAG. And if one goes on to draw the implication that there is an attempt to make IGF what is was not supposed to be, and thwarting efforts to make it do what it was supposed to do, it draws comments about attributing motives to people and such.. Anyway.. About EC there is an active effort, also pointed to by McTim (an EC taskforce) whereby whats happening at IGF itself is considered by some to be THE EC. That can be one point of view, lets discuss it... Now, even if this is THE EC, then why cant it be the one receiving annual reports from the involved organizations as per para 77 of TA. (Who else should receive it ?) This is somewhat like IGPs proposal on ICANN as the shiftover mechanism from the US-ICANN JPA. JPA is one the most discussed issues in the IG public policy arena today. And if one wants to move over from US govs oversight - which most global CS people want - we cant examine the institutional form which will take its place. The ALAC's draft response to NTIA on JPA says that "We suggest that in preparation for the final transition of ICANN away from the JPA, an institutional form should be found that ensures that ICANN does not lie under the authority of any single national legislation." In fact I wanted the plenary subject to be wider on what this possible institutional form could be rather than specifically point to EC - so as to not foreclose options. (EC would in any case have got discussed within this framework). But you find it vaguely worded and I am unable to make it clearer. So lets propose EC directly in the title, and any other options may be discussed under this title. Now, if IGF doesn't want to discuss these most important public policy issues which seems to be on the mind of most people, than it is shirking its responsibility, and it is the job of CS to tell it that. We will propose what we think are the most important public policy issues right now, let them reject these if they will. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: DRAKE William [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:54 PM > To: Governance List > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > > > Hi Parminder > > Parminder wrote: > > Bill > > > > > >>I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and > issues, > >>which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a > >>special reading of that language). > > > > > > I mean, well let me be blunt, we need to know whats happening about > enhanced > > cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility > of > > Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose > to talk about EC per se. Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC > proposal we'll need to get consensus on it. If people here do agree, > it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try... > > A process suggestion: as more topics have been tossed into the pot > piecemeal since you circulated your first draft statement, it's a little > difficult to know just where we are. You might want to recirculate with > with all the bits in one place and try to coordinate a structured > discussion of each section sequentially. If you wait and pull a rabbit > out of your hat too close to the due date, things could fall apart with > objections to part a, b, c...just a thought. > > > > As for the whole thing being about IG issues and institutions, we know > that > > the workshops happen the whole thing is not about them. And also that a > > focused examination of EC and other specific insituional requirement > issues > > is at a different level. > > I don't follow, but anyway in saying the IG forum should be about IG,I > meant including the main sessions, which really have been more on > general Internet issues than the actual conduct of collective governance > vis those issues. You've agreed with me on this prior so probably we're > talking past each other here. > > > > I don't understand your point on > > > >>Athens > >>Rio, there was no overarching theme, really. > > > > > > Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both > > Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that > > really means nothing. But the fact was prominently displayed in all > official > > docs etc. > > I remember very clearly what they were about (?), and despite the > development label on the program, as with IG, I did not actually hear > much focused discussion about development per se in the main sessions, > nor in most of the workshops I attended, which was part of why I did the > development agenda ws. > > Words are losing meaning in the IGF... > > > > >>Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec. > >>maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing? > > > > > > That was Milton's formulation though I largely agreed with it. Does my > > placing EC in the centre of the formulation make it clearer? A lot of > people > > - Wolfgang, McTim on this list, and some others like in the IGF workshop > at > > Delhi ICANN meeting are suggesting that EC is what is actually happening > > right now at the IGF. Lets examine this perspective also. > > Fine, propose it in a manner everyone can grok and we'll see if there's > consensus. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 16 10:12:28 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <20080216054458.94C0167833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get > through the whole process. Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and inconclusive debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly compiling the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. At this point I suggest we recalibrate: 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and react to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not bullet points. 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal line of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions or put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out elaborate cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000 words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And that's just one of your proposed three. 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of workshops "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main sessions, which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;" that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or dilution;" and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some new things that would be even more value-adding, etc. Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus charter, many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and buy in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in a manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people say yes we don't have caucus statements. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Sat Feb 16 17:52:05 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:52:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the sporadic peanut-gallery engagement here, but WRT this: At 4:54 AM -0800 2/14/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >I must admit, nor would I regard anything from moveon.org or the EFF when >taking about the internet as anything other than propaganda .. I like EFF, and while I do not consider them "politically neutral" I do approve of their staunch defense of the public interest. Whether their activities derive from progressive or libertarian origins (some mixture, at this point), I find no fault with them. In short, EFF may be involved in "propaganda" at times, but not *just* propaganda -- their main activity is litigation in the public interest, usually against either large monopolistic corporations (progressive) or the government itself (libertarian). While EFF takes strong stands on ICT policy issues, one thing one cannot say about them is that they are *partisan* (in the sense of favoring any particular political party) -- nothing of the sort. Sometimes people use the word "propaganda" as a pejorative term. When it is abused, for sure it is. But not all "propaganda" is abusive in the unethical sense, per se. It can simply be a reflection of one's political values. If one endeavors to discuss political issues at all, then *everything* is propaganda when it comes to stating the "ought" about an issue, especially including the statement quoted above. So, let's understand that all statements about policy are "political" and often even "ideological" and further not every political statement is meant to mislead. But it is probably true that most political statements carry implicit or explicit framing that reflects the subjective political values of the speaker. For example, I recently took a job at an institute that does basic policy research of a nonpartisan and independent nature -- we are monolithically data-driven and take our mission of objectivity *very* seriously (and while we all have subjective opinions about policy, it is very important that we leave them at the door when we go to work). That mission of objectivity requires that we do not do any lobbying (partly for legal reasons connected to our incorporation, and partly for institutional branding reasons, which affect how broadly our work is received and how much external funding we can get to support our work) and we are fairly minimal about policy recommendations, with more of a focus on trying to best understand what is actually going on in the real world (whatever analysis results from that, it is coming from the data first, not the other way around -- we are like a public policy research department of an academic institution without the classes and students). Part of the logic here is that, regardless of what ideological values one has, if one wants to design effective public policy, one must start from an accurate understanding of the world's causal dynamics and the facts on the ground. But in order to proceed from that point to designing policy, policy-makers' political values must enter the picture, and that includes choices as to how to frame the issues themselves. Dan PS -- This may also relate to the discussion about "what is CS" in context of Internet admin bodies. If we try to lump everything that is not public sector or for-profit sector into "CS" we get a very motley crew, ranging from ultra-right-wing and religious groups to very progressive advocacy groups and social service providers. However, when I think of the term "civil society" I tend to include a progressive political skew, because I'm thinking of organizations concerned with the public interest, which largely tend toward inherently progressive missions. Also, even if an admin body is formally structured under nonprofit law, it may act as an extension of the public sector (so-called "quasi-governmental" institutions), and/or it may be highly controlled or influenced by the wealth of the for-profit sector (such as trade associations). In these cases, I would tend not to include them in non-profit sector per se, since they really behave more like either the public and/or for-profit sector, at least insofar as they pursue missions connected to those other sectors, and may have substantial authority to make public policy directly. PPS -- WRT the telecom immunity issue, the House had passed a version of the bill without retroactive immunity, and decided to let the old law expire since Bush said he would veto a temporary extension, and the Senate waited until the last minute to drop their version of the bill with retroactive immunity included. The House was not given information to evaluate the lawsuits in question (which the Senate bill would moot), and apologists for immunity say "the Senate decided no laws were broken" but then why not let the suits play out in the courts which should have the authority to decide legality? It's not as if the telecoms are so poor that they can't engaged the judicial process -- they're fighting against much poorer public interest groups with far less resources, and the telecoms are generally on the winning side of such chilling effects. Let this not be an example of a breakdown of trust in government (it is specific to the officeholder, not the office), but rather an example that if an unethical officeholder should come to power, the private sector should stand up to it if the admin asks it to break the law. We need the private sector not to feel it is safe to collude with government corruption, but rather to independently stand up for the rule of law in the face of political power. My two cents: I applaud the House for not approving the Senate version (which probably resulted from heavy pressure from the Bush admin, leading to the possibility of filibuster by Senate Republicans, thus procedurally tying the Democrats' hands and playing politics with the issue of "national security" in an election year), especially for not responding to the last-minute no-information nature of the pressure coming through the Senate from the President. This lame duck is still using all the structural leverage it possibly can, dogmatic to the finish. -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Feb 16 19:13:15 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:13:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080217001315.GB11111@hserus.net> Dan Krimm [16/02/08 14:52 -0800]: >In short, EFF may be involved in "propaganda" at times, but not *just* >propaganda -- their main activity is litigation in the public interest, >usually against either large monopolistic corporations (progressive) or the >government itself (libertarian). While EFF takes strong stands on ICT Progressive? When it comes to innuendo, twisting truth around like pretzels .. they have Karl Rove beat. I've had a longish record of calling their bluff on one uninformed bit of anti antispam propaganda after the other, the last one being this - http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove/ It doesnt really help that they have a raving lunatic like John Gilmore calling the tune there. His diatribe here prompted me to write that post by the way .. scroll down, rather nearer the end of the thread. Pasted below [quote] http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664 # John Gilmore, on October 25th, 2006 at 9:24 pm Said: Spam is a problem but anti-spammers are a much bigger problem. (Communism was a perceived problem in the US in the 50s but Senator McCarthy and his unaccountable blacklists created a much bigger problem.) e360 was right to sue Spamhaus for operating a conspiracy to drive their email businesses out of the market. I have never found an anti-spammer who was honest. My own server is on most anti-spammer blacklists though I have never sent a single spam message, nor have I violated any other law relating to sending email. (They.ve made up a whole set of other rules of their own devising . that they claim I.m supposed to follow, otherwise they.ll interfere with my communication.) Delegating censorship decisions about your email . and even worse, your customers. email . to unreliable third parties is not only irresponsible, it also constitutes a conspiracy to deny service. Antitrust laws outlaw a majority of firms in a market from doing exactly that. (It.s like Intel and Microsoft deciding that their products will refuse to work on an AMD processor.) Even worse, anti-spammers like Vixie or spamhaus deliberately block more people than the spammers, in order to blackmail those people into joining the conspiracy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 16 22:08:33 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:08:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47B7A531.6020209@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > Sorry for the sporadic peanut-gallery engagement here, but WRT this: > > At 4:54 AM -0800 2/14/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I must admit, nor would I regard anything from moveon.org or the EFF when >> taking about the internet as anything other than propaganda .. > > I like EFF As do I. We should strive that in all our ventures of internet governance to remember that the purpose of governance is to improve the lives of people. One way in which lives are improved is to provide a means of compensation when someone is harmed. When we - you and me - have our privacy violated and the express promises of our service contracts violated, we are harmed. Any internet provider that violates a law or its contracts should compensate the victims. That is just and proper. Insofar as AT&T and others have violated my privacy and violated their agreement with me (I am an AT&T customer) than they should compensate me. That is just, proper, and in the spirit of long established law. EFF aspires to justice. I am proud that EFF has held to the ancient principle that where there is a wrong the law should seek a remedy. It is sad that on this list a very good person has been directly defamed and insulted. I have known John Gilmore for years. He is neither "raving" nor a "lunatic". He is a decent, rational, and charitable person who believes that people should be citizens rather than subjects. He believes strongly in the individual human being and deeply resents arbitrary and capricious restraints on individual liberty. In our aspirations for internet governance we would be well served by adopting the views of EFF and John Gilmore that people do matter, that legitimacy of bodies of governance ultimate comes from those people, and that asking questions, requiring answers, and holding to principle is to be admired, not condemned. And we should always seek to construct our systems of internet governance on broadly accepted principles of justice and with deep regard for the mechanisms, many dating from the 18th century, to help prevent the growth of lawless and arbitrary institutions of governance. The EFF is our friend in that endeavor. --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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Feb 16 23:39:03 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:09:03 +0530 (IST) Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <47B7A531.6020209@cavebear.com> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> <47B7A531.6020209@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <88c895bc0ff2727f22ba71c8b9539413.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net> On Sun, February 17, 2008 8:38 am, Karl Auerbach wrote: > It is sad that on this list a very good person has been directly defamed > and insulted. I have known John Gilmore for years. He is neither "raving" > nor a "lunatic". Yes, that's why he calls paul vixie (say) a blackmailer. Sure. Spam filtering is his huge, huge blind spot - ever since Verio terminated his server for being a persistent open relay that kept getting abused to send spam, viruses (at least one virus - if not more - that had gnu.toad.com hardcoded into a list of open relays to send through, back in the sobig/sober days..). Anything at ALL that gilmore posts about spam filtering is not sensible or reasoned. It is shrill, screaming abuse. Not very coherent abuse either. The EFF is good when it comes to protecting people preserve their civil liberties, and their tactics might even work very well indeed when used against an autocratic government [though I must say moveon's "General Betray Us" campaign left a bad taste in my mouth - and in the mouths of several people who have given to the EFF for years). Their tactics are far less good or sensible when it comes to vicious political campaigns against ISPs - private companies that filter spam on their own networks - with best effort in mind (oh yes, if moveon.org decides to invite one of our support role accounts - read by a staff based out of hong kong - to march on the white house in DC, I do wonder if they're going to pay about 10 people airfare + hotel for that...). Some of their most vicious campaigns so far have been against people I know and respect for their clue level, and their commitment to protect their users privacy .. by filtering spam. Admins walk a very fine line between filtering spam and letting valid email through.. But when it comes to a case like John's .. allowing his server to send out several thousand pieces of spam for every single legit email sent out through it by (one of his own examples here, I think) John Perry Barlow traveling in Africa and needing an smtp mail relay [wot, no webmail, no smtp auth, no ssh tunnels etc etc etc?] - he really shouldnt be surprised that several ISPs started blocking his email, or that Verio canceled his hosting. Whatever he has posted on spam filtering after that has been shrill abuse, and most of the EFF's posts about spam filtering after that have been propaganda with little or no reference to the truth, if at all. Tim Lee (Technology Liberation Front)'s perspective on that - google it up, I think it was linked off my circleid article above. If the EFF stuck to going after repressive government policy - fine. Great. When they go after (say) Comcast for their traffic shaping .. no particular skin off my nose, though they're using pretty much the same inflammatory and loaded language ("forgery" etc). They open their mouths about spam filtering, they tend to put their feet in it, fast. And I tend to call them on it. ps: dearaol.com - the EFF campaign against goodmail that I reacted to by comparing EFF's tactics to Karl Rove's - is dead in the water. Quietly fizzled out after less than a few months of activity, and I think the domain itself is parked or squatted upon by now. Going out "not with a bang, but with a whimper" as TS Eliot put it in "The Hollow Men" suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 00:58:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:28:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080217055900.E90F86788A@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Parminder, > > On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > > through the whole process. > > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > inconclusive > debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly > compiling > the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for > labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. > > At this point I suggest we recalibrate: > > 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I > would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format > and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and > react > to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not > bullet > points. Yes, Bill, I am going to do all that - I mean, put the statements in a clearer closer-to-final form... I kept the Sunday for that. Meanwhile, I have some defending to do here, and if it is distracting, I apologize for the indulgence. In my view the feb consultations are very important with the possibility of some re-examination of the MAG, and possibly IGF structures. It is important that IGC is able to provide some substantive contributions - which are specific and clear. There is no point in keeping on claiming ourselves as the primary CS forum in this space and not really contribute anything of substance. I mean more that the regular stuff of - give us more representation, give good facilities at the conf space and such... It is easy to put some 'regular' stuff in a statement and make it focused and get consensus easily. I don’t see much point in doing it. Which is why my effort was aimed at evoking greater involvement, soliciting really substantive suggestions and a good discussion around them, and from there to see if we could get some really meaningful points in, which justify the claims of IGC to be whatever it claims to be. In the first instance, a few weeks back I merely put together a set of questions that seem to be connected to the main issue(s) at hand, taking from some discussion on this list, and on the MAG list. (BTW, Tech community issue had some prominence there) No one came back. That leaves me in some problem. Then I listed some points for MAG renewal - relatively clear point wise text. There was some response, and the distraction on tech community issue, which I will speak about in a different email. You must remember that at early stages I will merely be suggesting some possible points and text - partly from what I know could likely be accepted by the group, as per earlier discussions, and partly some suggestions from my side. Everyone at this stage has a right to suggest points and texts - that’s the only way some progress can be made over what we have always said all these years, and our statements can be addressing more of the immediately presented context in a meaningful way. It was deliberate now to present finished statement kind of format, and instead give some loose points to open up a discussion. A finished-statement kind of format makes it look like either you agree with this or you do not. It does not encourage inputting new independent points, which I wanted to draw. Neither non-engagement, nor only process related engagement without also offering some meaningful substantive points is useful at this stage. So, I am not ready to take the blame for the situation in which caucus statement is in at present. It is up to the caucus to decide what it wants to be and what it wants to do. I will offer what help I can, and if it is anyone's point that I am actually inhibiting any possible outcome, I will like to be told clearly about it. (Bill, not suggesting that this is your point.) > Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus > charter, > many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've > been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this > discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and > buy > in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in > a > manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the > silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people > say > yes we don't have caucus statements. The earlier active people you speak about own the caucus as much as I do. I can do only that much to generate responses, rest is to up to those who wish and care to respond. As for presenting relatively concise statements hitting the key points - the MAG statement is more or less point wise - so is themes statement, and IGF format statement will be made into this form. 3 different statements, I thought organized issues better, and in nay case at the consultations it is better to make 3 interventions rather than 1. And yes you are right if we do not have enough responses we don’t have caucus statements. But there is no point giving statements that repeat generic stuff, when we ourselves want IGF to get more purposeful in its work. It may be better not to give any statement instead. May just make us sit and sort out how best to organize ourselves to go forward, in the directions we may want to. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > Parminder, > > On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > > through the whole process. > > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > inconclusive > debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly > compiling > the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for > labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. > > At this point I suggest we recalibrate: > > 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I > would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format > and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and > react > to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not > bullet > points. > > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > line > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions > or > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > elaborate > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. > > 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For > example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000 > words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And > that's > just one of your proposed three. > > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the > caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of > workshops > "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that > "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main > sessions, > which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;" > that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the > issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication > on > global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or > dilution;" > and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > new > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. > > Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus > charter, > many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've > been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this > discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and > buy > in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in > a > manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the > silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people > say > yes we don't have caucus statements. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 01:18:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:48:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080217061847.A71C367848@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > inconclusive debate about what what we are willing to call the TC I must add some observations about what you call as the 'divisive and inconclusive debate'. There seems to be some impression that I should have avoided raising and pushing some issues that caused this. First of all I quote what my proposed statement text said. "On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community’s presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection." This is a mere elaboration of a point we made in caucus statements in Feb 07 and in May 07. To quote " We note that the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment". Here we already accept the cross-cutting nature of representation of tech communities. So what is that I did wrong is not clear to me. At a time when MAG's structure and renewal was specifically being discussed would it not be natural to state out view a little more clearly so that some one takes notice of it. And also put some force of justifications behind it. And when MAG itself is discussing the issue about the nature of the tech community, and its representation, do you think we can avoid taking this issue up when the CS is the stakeholder group which is most implicated in the way tech community's representation gets defined. In the Feb and May O7 statements we also called for " rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group" to be "openly established", and, as quote earlier, the " the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities" should be " openly and transparently discussed". It is quite hypocritical to ask MAG to do these discussions openly and transparently and establish clear rules and quotas when the CS itself is not willing to enter into this discussion. Which is the reason why I made the above point, which in my view, was very fine to make since it came from earlier statements. McTim took issues with it - though still process related ones, that it can reduce the CS representation, which did not look very convincing argument, but fine. To this Ian replied that the org's that get representation under tech community umbreall are better given representation under a clear separate category created for them. At this stage, I have got a series of responses positively inclined towards this formulation. Only Adam and you seem to have some problems, but as stated, on political/ process issues. McTim was the only person who moved towards hardening of his position against this. That would be just one person, and about Adam and your view, while you are entitled to put it the way you want to, it often helps at these times to clearly state your view on the issue under consideration, rather than just giving process views about how this will be divisive etc. sometime it can confuse more than clarify - because if one clearly knew which side one was - one can count people supporting and people against. If I knew these positions, and it were not against the original text/proposed additional formulations, that it would only be McTim against it. And rough consensus could actually hold. The positive views were considerable, and we normally do not get much higher number for most of out positions here. And if you thought there were some people who were against it, but deliberately silent, I think they need to come out and say what they wanted. The topic wasn’t such anathema that they could not even discuss it. I have shown above that it was close to our earlier consensus positions. If they don’t speak, and enough speak for the position, then that position goes out. Not to speak out is either lack of confidence in the caucus, or its processes as coordinated by me/us, which if true also needs to come out. In any case whatever opposition there was it was about the subsequent IAB related formulations of a separate name/ group (instead of tech community). My original formulation as quoted above has not had clear comments against it except by McTim, and I am still not sure if this formulation - close to our earlier stated positions - itself a problem for anyone else. Parminder PS: in the quoted feb and may 07 statements, we do mention our first priority of one third representation (implying no separate tech community quota) and only, in terms of pragmatism, since the die was already cast, the second priority of at least one fourth (conceding the tech group quota). To quote " thus we would like to see such participation (of CS) expanded to at least one fourth of the group, if not one third, and to the same levels of the private sector and of the Internet technical community" It is obvious that at a principle level we believed in no separate quota for tech community, and only cross cutting inclusion, which is also clear from our reference to it in the earlier quote on its cross-cutting nature. And only as a second choice, in case the principle is not accepted, we concede a quota for tech community. These statements were made when the MAG was already formed, and we were protesting against inadequate representation. There was no express processes of review. In the present instance, we are preparing a statement in the context of a situation where MAGs whole structure is being re-examined (or should be). I would think it is time to state our principles more clearly. But here we are wary of even discussing them. In fact those who suggested the IAB formulation are merely using pragmatism in a different direction of keeping the representation of these organizations as such, and only clarifying the term. And I must comment on what you, Bill, said about the 'ship having set sail' long ago. In that sense, - it has set sail foreclosing almost all possibilities we want from IGF. So should we close our engagements with it. Everything about WIPO has been written in language of IP, but there are forces which are trying to make the same forum turn into something structurally very different - access to knowledge, and expanding public domain - and getting some success. CS cannot give up, else there is little chance of progressive change. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > Parminder, > > On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > > through the whole process. > > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > inconclusive > debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly > compiling > the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for > labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. > > At this point I suggest we recalibrate: > > 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I > would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format > and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and > react > to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not > bullet > points. > > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > line > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions > or > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > elaborate > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. > > 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For > example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000 > words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And > that's > just one of your proposed three. > > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the > caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of > workshops > "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that > "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main > sessions, > which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;" > that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the > issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication > on > global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or > dilution;" > and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > new > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. > > Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus > charter, > many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've > been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this > discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and > buy > in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in > a > manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the > silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people > say > yes we don't have caucus statements. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 17 01:19:22 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:19:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] paragraph 69 and blacklists (was Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms) Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2008 7:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > On Sun, February 17, 2008 8:38 am, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > It is sad that on this list a very good person has been directly defamed > > and insulted. I have known John Gilmore for years. He is neither "raving" > > nor a "lunatic". > > Yes, that's why he calls paul vixie (say) a blackmailer. Sure. Definitely beyond the pale, and a short step from there to net-kookery. Block/black-listing is not inherently evil, but AFAIK, it's a service. Organisations choose to use these services. In other words, if org A didn't choose to use one of these services, and your network is spewing, mail from you to user at orgA will be delivered. If orgA does use the service, and your network is clean, then mail will be delivered. It's only when orgA uses the service AND your network has been flagged that your mail to orgA doesn't get there. Don't blame the lister(s), blame orgA or, more likely, correct the problems in your own network. I think the main question for us on this sub-topic is in re: para 69: 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. Is block/blacklisting a "day-to-day technical and operational matter" that does not impact on international public policy issues? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 01:59:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:29:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080217065953.F17BBA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > line > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions > or > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > elaborate > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. I am going to prepare a more concise statement, but often the discussion and arguments are more important for this group than for the IGF consultations, and therefore I let the arguments stay in along with substantive points. But I think the reasoning was not so much personal. The statement takes its point of departure as the agreed text on the theme proposal on 'Role and mandate of IGF' for Rio. Especially the sentence - that some of the mandates cannot be fulfilled merely by holding an annual conference (drafted by you). So, as per this, I divided the kinds of functions IGF is supposed to do into 2 types. (I thought it make sense to suggest structural changes in IGF in context of functions it is supposed to perform, and not just throw some points at them without this connection). Rather than a somewhat dismissive 'annual cof' tag I used the one Nitin is currently most fond of 'open town hall meeting'. I think we have all been in favor of a better organized IGF with plenaries and workshops linked to each other (our 07 statements). But it is our experience that all workshops cannot be forced into such structuring - which limits the diversity etc. Swiss gov doc asks for limiting the number of workshops for better structuring, but we are on record to say (in 07 statements) that there should be no restriction on number of workshops. Given above imperatives I suggested two concurrent architectures for the Delhi IGF -one which is open and un-restrictive, and the other more tightly organized using WGs. It more or less flows from our existing thinking on this matter. It is also something which was already tried - though half-heartedly - for Rio, in classifying two types of workshops. One thing I added was a specific critique of the plenaries. Everyone I know thought there is a problem with plenaries, but we can discuss this here. > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the > caucus to use language suggesting, .... OK, we can tone it down. Pl suggest language. But we shd also be careful about what happens when we write in the manner of we tried xyz in > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > new > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. They will say, thanks for the compliment, we know you have even greater ambition and that is natural esp for CS. But lets consolidate our gains first. You described as jaw dropping the manner in which Kummer build a -everything-is-going-great-at-IGF picture in the IGF workshop at ICANN Delhi. Who do you think is going to bell this cat, or point to the emperor's non-clothes if CS doesn’t. I think we need not be too cautious here. We are even more 'cautious' than gov. and business sector in IGF deliberations, and that’s not quite right. On the other hand, we are going to say positive things - like about new openness - where it is due. My IGF format statement has only a few key points 1. We need to structure it to enable to get the parts of the mandate which are not being performed or well performed at present. 2. Plenaries should discuss specific public policy issues, and not just some general stuff. 3. A set of workshops should be aligned to each plenaries. 4. other set of workshops can be open, and cover more varied topics. 5. separate working groups consisting of MAG members and some outsiders should prepare for each plenary and its associated workshops. 6. These WGs should also synthesize the outcomes of each plenary - even if as a set of views presented. That’s all nothing more. I think it is better to make a proposal for a clear structural change, and only focus on that. Other points about conf facilities and such can be made in May. This may be the time when some points about structural changes can get in, later it will be too late. So please let me know what members think about these points. And lets work on our agreements on these points. Issues of language, taking slants that more positive or less, cutting out descriptions like 'divergent and convergent identity' can be commented on separately, and worked on. That’s less of a problem. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > Parminder, > > On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > > through the whole process. > > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > inconclusive > debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly > compiling > the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for > labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. > > At this point I suggest we recalibrate: > > 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I > would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format > and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and > react > to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not > bullet > points. > > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > line > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions > or > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > elaborate > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. > > 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For > example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000 > words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And > that's > just one of your proposed three. > > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the > caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of > workshops > "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that > "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main > sessions, > which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;" > that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the > issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication > on > global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or > dilution;" > and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > new > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. > > Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus > charter, > many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've > been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this > discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and > buy > in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in > a > manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the > silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people > say > yes we don't have caucus statements. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 17 05:17:41 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:17:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <20080217065953.F17BBA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080217065953.F17BBA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050802170217l2cd732f8hed832f809fa6b295@mail.gmail.com> An observation on knitting concepts: At WSIS (I and II I believe) (and some of us met there, hello again) "i* nterconnecitivty*" was the byword. Confession: I didn't really understand a difference from "*connectivit*y" but we do gain the phrase "*inter".* Seems a useful tie in to network metaphors and edge ones both. Wouldn't it be nice if CS approached the kudos and regrets (paraphrase) from such a perspective. There are many rich comments here implying disconnections but also connections that held. (Parenthetically, I'll try to glean some real-time (then) screen shorts from the remote shore to show some gains in connectivity online). It's really helpful, by the way, to read here creative and incisive ways of describing *cat-belling* and *emperor clothing*. Very elegant and very instructive. Warm regards, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 2/17/08, Parminder wrote: > > > > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > > line > > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not > been > > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same > conclusions > > or > > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > > elaborate > > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. > > I am going to prepare a more concise statement, but often the discussion > and > arguments are more important for this group than for the IGF > consultations, > and therefore I let the arguments stay in along with substantive points. > > But I think the reasoning was not so much personal. The statement takes > its > point of departure as the agreed text on the theme proposal on 'Role and > mandate of IGF' for Rio. Especially the sentence - that some of the > mandates > cannot be fulfilled merely by holding an annual conference (drafted by > you). > > So, as per this, I divided the kinds of functions IGF is supposed to do > into > 2 types. (I thought it make sense to suggest structural changes in IGF in > context of functions it is supposed to perform, and not just throw some > points at them without this connection). Rather than a somewhat dismissive > 'annual cof' tag I used the one Nitin is currently most fond of 'open town > hall meeting'. > > I think we have all been in favor of a better organized IGF with plenaries > and workshops linked to each other (our 07 statements). But it is our > experience that all workshops cannot be forced into such structuring - > which > limits the diversity etc. Swiss gov doc asks for limiting the number of > workshops for better structuring, but we are on record to say (in 07 > statements) that there should be no restriction on number of workshops. > > Given above imperatives I suggested two concurrent architectures for the > Delhi IGF -one which is open and un-restrictive, and the other more > tightly > organized using WGs. It more or less flows from our existing thinking on > this matter. It is also something which was already tried - though > half-heartedly - for Rio, in classifying two types of workshops. > > One thing I added was a specific critique of the plenaries. Everyone I > know > thought there is a problem with plenaries, but we can discuss this here. > > > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us > may > > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for > the > > caucus to use language suggesting, .... > > OK, we can tone it down. Pl suggest language. But we shd also be careful > about what happens when we write in the manner of > > we tried xyz in > > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > > new > > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. > > They will say, thanks for the compliment, we know you have even greater > ambition and that is natural esp for CS. But lets consolidate our gains > first. You described as jaw dropping the manner in which Kummer build a > -everything-is-going-great-at-IGF picture in the IGF workshop at ICANN > Delhi. Who do you think is going to bell this cat, or point to the > emperor's > non-clothes if CS doesn't. I think we need not be too cautious here. We > are > even more 'cautious' than gov. and business sector in IGF deliberations, > and > that's not quite right. > > On the other hand, we are going to say positive things - like about new > openness - where it is due. > > My IGF format statement has only a few key points > > 1. We need to structure it to enable to get the parts of the mandate which > are not being performed or well performed at present. > > 2. Plenaries should discuss specific public policy issues, and not just > some > general stuff. > > 3. A set of workshops should be aligned to each plenaries. > > 4. other set of workshops can be open, and cover more varied topics. > > 5. separate working groups consisting of MAG members and some outsiders > should prepare for each plenary and its associated workshops. > > 6. These WGs should also synthesize the outcomes of each plenary - even if > as a set of views presented. > > That's all nothing more. I think it is better to make a proposal for a > clear > structural change, and only focus on that. Other points about conf > facilities and such can be made in May. This may be the time when some > points about structural changes can get in, later it will be too late. > > So please let me know what members think about these points. > > And lets work on our agreements on these points. Issues of language, > taking > slants that more positive or less, cutting out descriptions like > 'divergent > and convergent identity' can be commented on separately, and worked on. > That's less of a problem. > > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM > > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > Parminder, > > > > On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week > to > > get > > > through the whole process. > > > > Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and > > inconclusive > > debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly > > compiling > > the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for > > labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever. > > > > At this point I suggest we recalibrate: > > > > 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus > on. I > > would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining > format > > and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and > > react > > to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not > > bullet > > points. > > > > 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal > > line > > of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not > been > > discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons > > differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same > conclusions > > or > > put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the > > possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out > > elaborate > > cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be > > said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them. > > > > 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For > > example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > > 1,000 > > words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And > > that's > > just one of your proposed three. > > > > 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us > may > > share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for > the > > caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of > > workshops > > "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that > > "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main > > sessions, > > which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;" > > that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of > the > > issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication > > on > > global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or > > dilution;" > > and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz > in > > Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some > > new > > things that would be even more value-adding, etc. > > > > Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus > > charter, > > many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've > > been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this > > discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and > > buy > > in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points > in > > a > > manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the > > silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people > > say > > yes we don't have caucus statements. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- 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 Sun Feb 17 05:55:53 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:55:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <47b7cd24.1abd600a.6478.ffff9d50SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Parminder, On 2/17/08 6:58 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > It is easy to put some 'regular' stuff in a statement and make it focused > and get consensus easily. I don¹t see much point in doing it. Which is why I wasn't suggesting that a caucus statement need be restricted to the trivial, just that it'd probably be easier to get engagement and consensus here and an attentive and responsive reception in the consultation by going with clean and concise statements of preference that don't sound aggrieved. So for example, rather than saying "One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, or perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, which is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is to some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime time for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year." We say, We believe that the Main Sessions [plenaries sounds like a negotiation to some] would be more compelling and productive if they focused on specific issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. Or whatever. I'm getting ready to head off for the day so I can't wordsmith, but would you could establish the basic propositions without needing great elaboration. The caucus statements will not be the only CS interventions, so they don't have to fully develop the various arguments one could make regarding each point. Put a consensual bullet point on the table and people can reference and develop it subsequently in accordance with their own takes on the issue. We often did it that way to good effect in the past, the coordinators laid out easily digested menus, statements of 1-1 1/2 pages, and then others drilled down and elaborated on the bits of particular interest. > > No one came back. That leaves me in some problem. Then I listed some points > for MAG renewal - relatively clear point wise text. There was some response, > and the distraction on tech community issue, which I will speak about in a > different email. I appreciate your intention and effort but think there's evidence that more complex formulations may not stimulate people to provide the responses you seek, at least not in a time frame and manner that leads to the rapid assembling of a statement, so why not try another route and see if it goes further. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 06:52:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:22:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080217115251.2A5FDE0661@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill > Parminder, > > > On 2/17/08 6:58 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > It is easy to put some 'regular' stuff in a statement and make it > focused > > and get consensus easily. I don¹t see much point in doing it. Which is > why > > I wasn't suggesting that a caucus statement need be restricted to the > trivial, just that it'd probably be easier to get engagement and consensus > here and an attentive and responsive reception in the consultation by > going > with clean and concise statements of preference that don't sound > aggrieved. > So for example, rather than saying Yes, as I said now I am going to write out shorter statements, since the arguments and justifications are already out there. These will be open to comment - additions, deletions etc for about 3 days or so, and then towards the end of the week we will put them out for consensus call. There will be two statements - one on MAG renewal, and another on IGF format and main session themes for Delhi. I have suggestions/ text for only two themes, so more are welcome. Parminder PS: Bill, I noticed that in my earlier email I inadvertently mischaracterized something you said generally about the IGF workshop at ICANN Delhi meet, as something specifically referring to one panelist's comments. I apologize for it. > > "One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too > many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, > or > perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were > just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of > these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to > make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue > under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were > remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, > which > is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is > to > some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and > openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime > time > for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year." > > We say, > > We believe that the Main Sessions [plenaries sounds like a negotiation to > some] would be more compelling and productive if they focused on specific > issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than > on > more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment > generally. > > Or whatever. I'm getting ready to head off for the day so I can't > wordsmith, but would you could establish the basic propositions without > needing great elaboration. The caucus statements will not be the only CS > interventions, so they don't have to fully develop the various arguments > one > could make regarding each point. Put a consensual bullet point on the > table > and people can reference and develop it subsequently in accordance with > their own takes on the issue. We often did it that way to good effect in > the past, the coordinators laid out easily digested menus, statements of > 1-1 > 1/2 pages, and then others drilled down and elaborated on the bits of > particular interest. > > > > No one came back. That leaves me in some problem. Then I listed some > points > > for MAG renewal - relatively clear point wise text. There was some > response, > > and the distraction on tech community issue, which I will speak about in > a > > different email. > > I appreciate your intention and effort but think there's evidence that > more > complex formulations may not stimulate people to provide the responses you > seek, at least not in a time frame and manner that leads to the rapid > assembling of a statement, so why not try another route and see if it goes > further. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 11:56:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:26:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47B58D0E.6090106@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> I have a closer-to-final text of the MAG reconstitution statement. I have checked all contributions I think, but will check again in the morning and add/ change as appropriate. If anyone had made a suggestion and it is not there, pl do not hesitate at all to let me know. Parminder The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. Membership of the MAG * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. * As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. * All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special Advisors and Chair * The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. * (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG statement.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 22976 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG statement.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 12:02:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:32:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <20080217115251.2A5FDE0661@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080217170320.312F26781C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Pl also think of inputs into statement themes for Delhi, along with your comments on the two themes plus some statement draft already proposed (they are mentioned in the enclosed emails). Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:22 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:00:31 +0530 Size: 17619 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Guru" Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:01:41 +0530 Size: 15781 URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 12:07:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:37:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Message-ID: <20080217170801.14543A6C27@smtp2.electricembers.net> Sorry, enclosed the worn email. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:33 PM > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > Pl also think of inputs into statement themes for Delhi, along with your > comments on the two themes plus some statement draft already proposed > (they are mentioned in the enclosed emails). Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:14:27 +0530 Size: 31132 URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 17 12:08:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:38:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Message-ID: <20080217171500.698CE67848@smtp1.electricembers.net> Its late, and I am sleepy. It was wrong, and not worn email... > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:37 PM > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > Sorry, enclosed the worn email. Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:33 PM > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > > > Pl also think of inputs into statement themes for Delhi, along with your > > comments on the two themes plus some statement draft already proposed > > (they are mentioned in the enclosed emails). Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:22 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake' > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Feb 17 16:10:50 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:10:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <20080217001315.GB11111@hserus.net> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> <20080217001315.GB11111@hserus.net> Message-ID: It is interesting to discover your personal history with Gilmore, as it explains a lot about your evaluation of him and EFF. In fact, your feelings about Gimore are understandable in light of the extremity of Gilmore's comments that you quoted (assuming you quoted them accurately and not out of context, which I am granting without examining the details this time, since I don't have lots of time to do investigative journalism right now). However, Gilmore is simply one of several board members of EFF, and he doesn't "call the tune" there -- Shari Steele is the ED and she calls the tune, with some general strategic and mission-setting direction from the board as a whole. As to whether Gilmore is a "raving lunatic" that is a rather extreme statement of opinion that says as much about the speaker as it does about Gilmore himself. I can understand that, as an anti-spam professional, you might well take umbrage at a blanket statement condemning your profession whole-hog. I don't agree with everything that John writes or says, myself, and I am willing to grant that there can be and probably are at least *some* "honest" anti-spam professionals out there, who wish only to empower end users to better control who send them email messages, especially when spam can contain viruses and other connections to malware, or simply con people into doing things against their own interests. But, John actually does not speak directly for EFF at all times, and you would do well to distinguish his personal comments from any official matters of EFF policy. What EFF actually does in the courtroom is beyond reproach, and that is chiefly where they should be judged, IMHO. As for Gilmore, he is passionate about free speech, and bless him for that. That is, he is not just passionate about defending the First Amendment per se (which only applies to censorship of speech by government), but he is passionate about freedom of expression in all contexts including presumably "private" and commercial contexts (such as a commercial communication network that people have come to reply upon for necessary communications). I happen to share this mission myself, and proudly so. Frankly, while I find spam annoying, and when taken to an extreme it can be unquestionably disruptive and costly and sometime even dangerous, if I were to be faced with a trade-off between freedom of speech versus controlling spam I would without question choose freedom of speech over an anti-spam stance in that specific context, whatever it is. In *my* personal hierarchy of values, free speech trumps rejecting spam. And that means that I agree in principle with the motivation of Gilmore's statement is the sense that if we are to err in drawing the lines of such a trade-off, we should undoubtedly err on the side of free speech. And frankly (again), we will never get a "clean" world where we can avoid such trade-offs. You might just as well try to square the circle. So where anti-spam systems cross the boundaries and start to oppress free expression (and along the way start to create gatekeepers of communication and information, which is a profoundly dangerous political precedent, even if it might seem to be framed with only commercial motives), I am whole-heartedly on Gilmore's side, and I believe anti-spam systems need to reined-in, through whatever means are necessary, including public sector regulation if that's what it takes. I suspect you disagree with me here, and that's fine, but it's a matter of political values, not objective "fact" as facts do not get into this value judgment beyond the point of determining exactly what the trade-off is in the first place. Democratic governments operate best (i.e., with the least corruption) where there is transparency to ensure accountability (like the access to public records afforded by the US Freedom of Information Act, however weak it may yet be). IMHO, the same applies to the private sector. When "security" concerns are used (as they have been in many contexts, both public and private) to chip away at freedom of expression, we begin our path down slippery slope. Eternal vigilance. Each generation must fight for it anew. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 4:13 PM -0800 2/16/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Dan Krimm [16/02/08 14:52 -0800]: >>In short, EFF may be involved in "propaganda" at times, but not *just* >>propaganda -- their main activity is litigation in the public interest, >>usually against either large monopolistic corporations (progressive) or the >>government itself (libertarian). While EFF takes strong stands on ICT > >Progressive? When it comes to innuendo, twisting truth around like pretzels >.. they have Karl Rove beat. > >I've had a longish record of calling their bluff on one uninformed bit of >anti antispam propaganda after the other, the last one being this - >http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove/ > >It doesnt really help that they have a raving lunatic like John Gilmore >calling the tune there. His diatribe here prompted me to write that post by >the way .. scroll down, rather nearer the end of the thread. Pasted below > >[quote] > >http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664 > ># >John Gilmore, on October 25th, 2006 at 9:24 pm Said: > >Spam is a problem but anti-spammers are a much bigger problem. (Communism >was a perceived problem in the US in the 50s but Senator McCarthy and his >unaccountable blacklists created a much bigger problem.) > >e360 was right to sue Spamhaus for operating a conspiracy to drive their >email businesses out of the market. I have never found an anti-spammer who >was honest. My own server is on most anti-spammer blacklists though I have >never sent a single spam message, nor have I violated any other law >relating to sending email. (They.ve made up a whole set of other rules of >their own devising . that they claim I.m supposed to follow, otherwise >they.ll interfere with my communication.) > >Delegating censorship decisions about your email . and even worse, your >customers. email . to unreliable third parties is not only irresponsible, >it also constitutes a conspiracy to deny service. Antitrust laws outlaw a >majority of firms in a market from doing exactly that. (It.s like Intel and >Microsoft deciding that their products will refuse to work on an AMD >processor.) Even worse, anti-spammers like Vixie or spamhaus deliberately >block more people than the spammers, in order to blackmail those people >into joining the conspiracy. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sun Feb 17 16:59:52 2008 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:59:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Sustainable Cities theme for Delhi References: <20080217065953.F17BBA6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <008a01c871b0$6c9dc1c0$6801a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> --- Theme for Consideration at IGF New Delhi --- Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable Global Cities All indications are that ICANN will soon begin offering new TLDs and that cities will qualify as recipients. I’d like to suggest a theme that would, if addresses by ICANN alone, most certainly fit within the dreaded "mission creep". It seems the IGF is the appropriate reviewing entity for this evolving situation. First some background to establish scope. As part of Connecting.nyc Inc.’s campaign to gather community support for our effort to acquire the .nyc TLD, I frequently make presentations to civic groups about the opportunities .nyc will enable. In presenting the background for our effort, I make a point about technology’s historic impact on our city using two slides. a.. Slide one shows a proud Henry Ford standing next to a Model A in an early 20th century New York. I tell of the promise this automotive technology made for less malodorous, more livable, horseless-city. b.. Slide two is of the South Bronx section of New York City 50 years later. It shows the razing of a one-block-wide by one-mile-long swath of six-story residential buildings to clear space for the Cross-Bronx Expressway and automotive access to the George Washington Bridge. Removing these buildings resulted in the eviction of 15,000 residents and is attributed as a key cause of the civil strife that severely damaged city life in the decades that followed. I then raise a few questions: What plans were made for the arrival and impact of the automobile? What impact has the arrival of the Internet had on city life? What plans have been made? – and answer that academics will provide clear answers to these later questions in the decades ahead, but that it’s time we begin thinking about and responding to the Internet’s impact on our cities. Concluding, I say that its time we take what steps we can to remedy the globalizing impacts “the .com Internet” has had on the traditional role of cities as “areas of proximity” - where person to person networking takes place, where ideas grow and concerns are addressed. And one clear way we can begin to address the globalizing impact of the .com Internet is by the acquisition, development, and operation of the .nyc-TLD. Now back to the IGF... As we enter 2008, much progress has been made toward creating a process and timetable for the ICANN’s issuing of new TLDs. This happens at the historic moment when urban areas have become home to more than 50% of the world’s population. And with urban consumption creating 75% of the world’s noxious discharges, they provide a focused opportunity for creating a more sustainable planet. ICANN’s impending issuance of city-TLDs provides the opportunity to develop policies and processes that foster sustainable development in global cities through the thoughtful development of the Domain Name System. (Global cities are those 135 cities playing key roles in the globalization process – see http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/global-cities-discussion.) It is proposed that a focus of the Delhi IGF be “Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable Global Cities” with a charge to set the course for a coordinated development of city-TLDs as part of an effort to foster environmental sustainability. And that those Global Cities that are key centers of the globalization process and environmental damage be the initial focus. Opportunities that might be considered include: a.. Sustainable Name Set-Asides – Domain names that serve as civic spaces for identifying and exploring environmental directions and opportunities should be set aside. For example, sustainable.nyc, green.london. These names should be internationalized - see next bullet. b.. Domain Name Internationalization -The IGF Rio “Broadening the Domain Name Space: Adding TLDs for Cities and Regions” panel previewed the internationalization study initiated by developers of the .nyc, .berlin, and .paris TLDs at the ICANN Los Angeles meeting. Panelist Sebastian Bacholet, appearing on behalf of the .paris TLD, provided three instances where second level domain names might be developed in various languages - www.taxi.nyc, www.hotels.paris, and www.hospital.berlin. By way of example, he explained that when in need of health care, German or French speaking visitors to New York City might enter www.krankenhaus.nyc or www.hôpital.nyc in their respective languages and receive pages with the needed information. c.. Best Practices – Creating a method for sharing best practices in city-TLD usage and the application of Community Informatics to civic needs. d.. Paired Cites – With .berlin, .nyc, and .paris preparing to apply for TLDs at the earliest opportunity, we might explore pairing of regional, north south, or sister cities that might facilitate the development of sustainable cities. e.. Development Funds - Can international development funds be used to foster Community Informatics and TLD implementation in global cities? f.. Expedited Global City TLD Issuance - Allocating Global City TLDs on an expedited basis to those cities which have accepted sustainable development standards such as the Aalborg Commitments. Clear thinking on the Internet’s role in the creation of more sustainable cities can be facilitated within the structure of the ICANN and other international entities. The IGF provides the opportunity for identifying extant or needed institutions to facilitate the development of sustainable cities and the role TLD can play in that regard. Respectfully submitted by Thomas Lowenhaupt, Chair, Connecting.nyc Inc., the New York not-for-profit seeking to acquire, develop, and operate the .nyc TLD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Feb 17 18:50:59 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:50:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <19D97055-A2ED-48E8-BA68-19347B8B620D@Malcolm.id.au> On 18/02/2008, at 1:56 AM, Parminder wrote: > · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, > nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate > a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of > various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, > we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too > late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi > meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has > already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > about the post-Delhi phase. This paragraph has lost the recommendation that the position of co- chair (or deputy chair, as you have it - I would prefer a co-chair) rotate between the stakeholder groups. It's important not to lose that, even if you don't extend it to both chairs as I would. > · (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter- > governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But > every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG > should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans > for the year ahead. > I like the alternate text. I didn't respond separately to the two suggested themes, but that was because I was (busy and) happy with them. I am personally of the view that the proposed EC theme and last year's CIR theme can be wrapped together, if the CIR topic is to be focussed at the institutional level. On the other hand I would not be averse to a particular substantive policy issue on ICANN's agenda (perhaps whether the issue of city gTLDs raises any legitimate global public policy concerns) being discussed intensively in a separate plenary session and the report of that session being delivered to ICANN. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 17 20:01:29 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:01:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050802171701g22c6f9c3v92a3ad1d12e7ff82@mail.gmail.com> Parminder, appreciate the link to the discussion threads. I'll try to post there later. But immediately I, as one individual, resonate to what Jeremy writes as follows: ----- begin quote -----: "This abject lack of connection to ordinary Internet users will not be redressed while the IGF continues to treat them as second class citizens. Consider that whilst over a million dollars was invested in the Rio meeting, the amount spent on the design and implementation of mechanisms for online participation and on developing an online community around the IGF was negligible. Similarly, whilst a series of open consultation meetings were held to settle upon the form which the IGF's physical meeting was to take, decisions about online engagement were made privately by the Secretariat without consultation (even with the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition that was formed for this purpose). The need for the IGF to more tightly integrate the participation of the remote Internet community with its processes has been repeatedly expressed. Even before the IGF was formed, the Cardoso report on the United Nations and civil society recommended that the UN "should experiment with a global Internet agora to survey public opinion and raise awareness on emerging issues." This requires a far higher priority to be accorded to online community building than has occurred to date. " --- end quote. LDMF Comment: here a pointer to the *Connectivity* issues. While not the youngest chick in the hatchery and likely less agile than most here as mutual contemporaries, I did work at it, and feel a HELP Desk is needed for next time. I'd be interested if indeed helpful And Jeremy, I was able to participate in both chat rooms simultaneously with split screen, so it was available but I guess not officially , rather through your magic, multiply multiplexing as you were. Best wishes to all, Linda. *Respectful Interfaces*. On 1/6/08, Parminder wrote: > > This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus > statement, > on the issue of reconstituting the MAG - or in the official language > 'suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the > various interested groups'. A discussion thread has been opened on this > issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . Strangely, > there > is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF secretariat as is the > norm. > But I think they would in any case take in comments as they have done for > all MAG meetings, and publish them in the comments page. > > > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Feb 17 23:38:16 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:38:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> <20080217001315.GB11111@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080218043816.GF14821@hserus.net> Dan Krimm [17/02/08 13:10 -0800]: >However, Gilmore is simply one of several board members of EFF, and he >doesn't "call the tune" there -- Shari Steele is the ED and she calls the >tune, with some general strategic and mission-setting direction from the >board as a whole. Let us put it this way. It is not just Gilmore. There are multiple EFF deeplinks, blog posts by various EFF people etc etc that all use the same theme, the same "meme" shall we say.. for xample, the "goodmail is blackmail" meme turned up on dearaol.com, eff deeplinks, politech posts etc etc. If it was just one guy ranting, I can always killfile and ignore him. If it is an entire organization with pernicious policies that they decry when (say) swift boat and karl rove do these, then I react. I will not post further about this here, as it is off topic for this mailing list. But I will post these few URLs here. And then welcome further discussion offlist. http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/15/debate-over-dearaolcom/ Some other posts summarizing history - though there's a lot more - http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/15/details-on-how/ http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/13/why-was-moveonorg/ http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/15/john-gilmore-on/ >But, John actually does not speak directly for EFF at all times, and you >would do well to distinguish his personal comments from any official >matters of EFF policy. What EFF actually does in the courtroom is beyond >reproach, and that is chiefly where they should be judged, IMHO. I have seen similar themes expressed, as I said, in EFF deeplinks, soundbites to reporters etc etc. Certainly not the extreme language Gilmore has used on occasion. But still, with a lot of attention to propagating a meme. For example, Brad Templeton says "protection racket" http://ideas.4brad.com/node/373 "One particular disturbing thing about the goodmail program is that it reminds me a bit of a protection racket." So ok, a personal blog post again. Then there's this EFF deeplink. Cindy Cohn on goodmail, in an EFF deeplink - calls it a shakedown http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php "And prepare to be shaken down if you run a noncommercial mailing list"... Now, "blackmail", "shakedown", "protection racket"... see the common theme? >In *my* personal hierarchy of values, free speech trumps rejecting spam. >And that means that I agree in principle with the motivation of Gilmore's I do hate slippery slope arguments. They are always the first to be trotted out in such cases, and rebuttal takes quite some time though they are patently absurd [yes that is a logical fallacy of some sort but its late, i am just off a plane in sanfran after 16 hours in the air, so ..] srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 18 04:29:20 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:29:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162935B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> The CDT comments are pretty silly, they have been swayed by this crazy inside-the-beltway meme about how US control is necessary to stop "other" governments from "taking over." See http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/1/29/3494481.html Consumers Union also takes a typical Washington approach, doesn't bother to look outside US borders in formulating its position, nor did they bother to interface with any of the groups actually involved in ICANN. To them, the NTIA proceeding is just another Washington, US gvot call for comments. ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:31 AM To: Governance Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA Hi, Wolf Ludwig just passed along the below statement from Delhi by the Consumers Union of the U.S, which is a fairly substantial entity as CS goes. They oppose -------------- 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 riazt at iafrica.com Sun Feb 17 13:49:41 2008 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:49:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI Received Unauthorized E-Mail Access Message-ID: <47B881C5.8020004@iafrica.com> FOCUS | FBI Received Unauthorized E-Mail Access http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021708Z.shtml Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times reports: "A technical glitch gave the FBI access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network - perhaps hundreds of accounts or more - instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 05:45:50 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:45:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162935B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi MM, I wasn¹t in Delhi but FWIW my understanding is that the CU person responsible is on ALAC and that the proposal was supported by a number of members when considering a possible ALAC statement on the JPA. Someone who was there can correct me, but that sounds a bit less insular than you suggest. Agree with you on CDT. My broader question remains as to patterns of CS views on this matter and possible regional variations therein... Bill On 2/18/08 10:29 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > The CDT comments are pretty silly, they have been swayed by this crazy > inside-the-beltway meme about how US control is necessary to stop ³other² > governments from ³taking over.² See > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/1/29/3494481.html > > Consumers Union also takes a typical Washington approach, doesn¹t bother to > look outside US borders in formulating its position, nor did they bother to > interface with any of the groups actually involved in ICANN. To them, the NTIA > proceeding is just another Washington, US gvot call for comments. > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:31 AM > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA > > Hi, > > Wolf Ludwig just passed along the below statement from Delhi by the Consumers > Union of the U.S, which is a fairly substantial entity as CS goes. They > oppose > -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 07:20:30 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:20:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162935B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080218122030.GA22011@hserus.net> William Drake [18/02/08 11:45 +0100]: >suggest. Agree with you on CDT. My broader question remains as to patterns >of CS views on this matter and possible regional variations therein... They do seem to exist. Even if there appears to be "global CS consensus" it is ephemeral. Especially where you dont get these CS groups moving in the same circles as yours. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 18 07:51:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:21:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <19D97055-A2ED-48E8-BA68-19347B8B620D@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20080218125146.C2E896781C@smtp1.electricembers.net> > This paragraph has lost the recommendation that the position of co- > chair (or deputy chair, as you have it - I would prefer a co-chair) > rotate between the stakeholder groups. It's important not to lose > that, even if you don't extend it to both chairs as I would. Jeremy Ok, I will keep this point open. However I do personally think that when we are making the removal of gov co-chair point, making this point of rotating the main chair as well, will dilute the impact of the co-chair point. And the co-chair point is somewhat more plausible to be considered especially since the CCBI and some others have also made a similar point. But this is only one viewpoint, mine. Others can comment on this... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 5:21 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > On 18/02/2008, at 1:56 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > . We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi- > > stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, > > nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate > > a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of > > various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, > > we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > > between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too > > late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi > > meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has > > already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > > about the post-Delhi phase. > > This paragraph has lost the recommendation that the position of co- > chair (or deputy chair, as you have it - I would prefer a co-chair) > rotate between the stakeholder groups. It's important not to lose > that, even if you don't extend it to both chairs as I would. > > > . (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter- > > governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But > > every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG > > should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans > > for the year ahead. > > > > I like the alternate text. > > I didn't respond separately to the two suggested themes, but that was > because I was (busy and) happy with them. I am personally of the view > that the proposed EC theme and last year's CIR theme can be wrapped > together, if the CIR topic is to be focussed at the institutional level. > > On the other hand I would not be averse to a particular substantive > policy issue on ICANN's agenda (perhaps whether the issue of city > gTLDs raises any legitimate global public policy concerns) being > discussed intensively in a separate plenary session and the report of > that session being delivered to ICANN. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 18 08:24:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:54:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> Some quick points on the statement below. I mean to add to the statement the point on appreciating the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. And that we are of the view that MAG should work through two elists - one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topic is expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case this topic should be listed, and summary of discussion provided as appropriate. Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the number 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted. Bill, do you have some text to add on inter-sessional aspect, apart from the WGs I have mentioned? On funding issue, McTim, you have asked - Do I mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation > in the MAG itself? I meant in the open consultations for non MAG members, but yes CS MAG members, esp, from dev/ LD countries also need support. Will add. Should we acknowledge that the Swiss gov contribution is a very useful and constructive input, and we will like a discussion taken up on the various points made in the doc (or something like that). (available at http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html ) Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG I have a closer-to-final text of the MAG reconstitution statement. I have checked all contributions I think, but will check again in the morning and add/ change as appropriate. If anyone had made a suggestion and it is not there, pl do not hesitate at all to let me know. Parminder The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. Membership of the MAG * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. * As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. * All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special Advisors and Chair * The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. * (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > -------------- 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 Feb 18 08:46:01 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:46:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks for this. > snip >Membership of the MAG >·         We think that 40 is a good number for >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. >·         The rules for membership of the MAG, >including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and make open along with due >justifications. We think that as per Tunis >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, >civil society and the business sector. TA also >rightly recognizes international organizations >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >they should be allowed an appropriate number of >seats in the MAG. The Internet organizations (technical/administrative community, whatever, the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to date, but should continue to be represented as a separate stakeholder group. I disagree with returning to the TA looking for rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the TA, picking and choosing from that document could dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much reduced participation, perhaps even text about stakeholders acting in their respective roles. I believe we should be looking to increase the number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) not trying to put things back in WSIS style boxes. Expanding participation is progress. >·         As per above, if we leave, say, 6 >seats for international organizations, Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. (And is it international organizations or intergovernmental organizations and is there any difference in the UN... I should know this!) > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil >society members I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick. That's all for now. Thanks, Adam >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >should be corrected in this round of rotation of >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >replace each retiring member with one from the >same stakeholder group. Full civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >·         Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen based on appropriate processes of >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of >that particular stakeholder group. This >complicates the process of selection, especially >in the case of civil society and business >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of >judgment. This, however, should be done in a >completely transparent manner. Deviations from >the self-selection processes of stakeholder >groups should be kept to the minimum and be >defensible, and normally be explained. >·         All stakeholders should be asked to >keep in mind the need to adequately represent >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >where applicable, special interest groups. >Special Advisors and Chair >·         The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >·         One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >·         We will also like greater clarity at >this point whether MAG has any substantive >identity other than advising the UN SG. For >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >looks highly impractical that these tasks can >cohere in the UN SG. >·         Having some authority and identity of >its own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >·         An annual report needs to be submitted >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >preparing this annual report, at present? It is >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >report, with engagement of all stakeholder >members. >·         (Alternate text for the above point >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and >there is nothing very exciting about it. But >every organization including IGF should have an >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual >report for the IGF. This report should mention >IGF activities and performance for the year >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >·         IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of the IGF. >Thank you. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / ) (00508305) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00508306) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 09:12:50 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:12:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080218125146.C2E896781C@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <19D97055-A2ED-48E8-BA68-19347B8B620D@Malcolm.id.au> <20080218125146.C2E896781C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629371@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I agree with you on this, Parminder. > -----Original Message----- > However I do personally think that when we are making the removal of gov > co-chair point, making this point of rotating the main chair as well, will > dilute the impact of the co-chair point. And the co-chair point is > somewhat more plausible to be considered especially since the CCBI and > some others have also made a similar 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 09:12:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:12:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] FBI Received Unauthorized E-Mail Access In-Reply-To: <47B881C5.8020004@iafrica.com> References: <47B881C5.8020004@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <002701c87238$594f8da0$0beea8e0$@net> Riaz K Tayob wrote: > FOCUS | FBI Received Unauthorized E-Mail Access > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021708Z.shtml > Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times reports: "A technical glitch gave > the FBI access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network - Yes - this says it all doesn't it? No further discussion really required. "This was a technical glitch in an area of evolving tools and technology and fast-paced investigations," Mr. Kortan said. "We moved quickly to resolve it and stop it. The system worked exactly the way it's designed." Subpoenas are routine - and in the case of FBI subpoenas we've encountered, inevitably are about criminals - scam, botnets, assorted other cybercrime. We do have internal controls in place, and a legal team to review these controls, and custom tools to provide exactly what is asked for - no more, no less .. so I can say we haven't screwed up like this before. But what was your point? That ISPs shouldn't screw up? That the FBI shouldn't send ISPs subpoenas in the course of an investigation? There is nothing at all here that suggests that this subpoena was warrantless. A technical error at an ISP, the FBI notices and asks the ISP to stop. Case closed. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 18 09:16:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:16:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629373@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. We certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, since the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that large a number. I also support those who warned you against getting involved in specific numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is underrepresented. ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the number 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted. -------------- 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 Mon Feb 18 09:25:26 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:25:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629373@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629373@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47B99556.9000606@rits.org.br> I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that if there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This is UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the leverage...) rather than think of a reduction. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall any > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. We > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, since > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that large a > number. > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in specific > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is > underrepresented. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the number > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing the > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone by > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case this > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 09:31:20 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:31:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47B99556.9000606@rits.org.br> References: <20080217165653.685A567839@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629373@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47B99556.9000606@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <004c01c8723a$edd52e60$c97f8b20$@net> It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular group of people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't like the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies .. and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post thread been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going to fall flat? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that if > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This > is > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the leverage...) > rather than think of a reduction. > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall any > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. > We > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > since > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > large a > > number. > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > specific > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > number > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > MAG > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > the > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone > by > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > this > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 11:16:22 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:16:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <004c01c8723a$edd52e60$c97f8b20$@net> Message-ID: <02bc01c87249$9c3817c0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hmmm... Separated by a common language... Suresh seems to be using the term "California Liberal" to refer (as US folks often do) to the propensity of certain highly visible Californians to support the liberal/left Democrats (Barbara Streisand for example); Parminder seems to be using the term "Californian Ideology"/"neo-liberals" (following Bradbrook and others and as folks in LDC's often do) to refer to the "neo-liberalism" (of the (Milton) Friedmanite/Boys from Chicago) strand of "libertarianism" found particularly among certain folks from Silicon Valley. (or have I got that wrong somewhere... MG -----Original Message-----c From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: February 18, 2008 6:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular group of people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't like the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies .. and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post thread been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going to fall flat? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > if there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. > This is UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it > to accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > leverage...) rather than think of a reduction. > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > > any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't > > happen. > We > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > since > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > large a > > number. > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > specific > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > > is underrepresented. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > number > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > MAG > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > the > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that > > can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I > > have gone > by > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > this > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > > confusion about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 11:18:53 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:18:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <02bc01c87249$9c3817c0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <004c01c8723a$edd52e60$c97f8b20$@net> <02bc01c87249$9c3817c0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <008a01c87249$f8f453c0$eadcfb40$@net> Both these seem equally distasteful to quite a few people I see here. But yes, my comment was in the context of prevailing silly valley political + social + economic thinking. Not the Hollywood variety thereof. thanks srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Hmmm... > > Separated by a common language... > > Suresh seems to be using the term "California Liberal" to refer (as US > folks > often do) to the propensity of certain highly visible Californians to > support the liberal/left Democrats (Barbara Streisand for example); > Parminder seems to be using the term "Californian Ideology"/"neo- > liberals" > (following Bradbrook and others and as folks in LDC's often do) to > refer to > the "neo-liberalism" (of the (Milton) Friedmanite/Boys from Chicago) > strand > of "libertarianism" found particularly among certain folks from Silicon > Valley. > > (or have I got that wrong somewhere... > > MG > > -----Original Message-----c > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: February 18, 2008 6:31 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Milton L Mueller' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular > group of > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't > like > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such > bodies .. > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level > of > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post > thread > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's > going to > fall flat? > > srs > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > > if there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. > > This is UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge > it > > to accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > > leverage...) rather than think of a reduction. > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > > > any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't > > > happen. > > We > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > since > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > large a > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > specific > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > > > is underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > number > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number > for > > MAG > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > > the > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > > > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number > that > > > can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I > > > have gone > > by > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > > this > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > > > confusion about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From donjmac at sympatico.ca Mon Feb 18 11:22:15 2008 From: donjmac at sympatico.ca (Don MacLean) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:22:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Adam, A belated reply to this message to thank you for calling the list's attention to the paper I co-authored with Tony Vetter and Heather Creech of IISD as a contribution to the February 26 preparatory meeting. In response to some of the reaction that followed, we thought it would be useful to provide some background information about the paper, as well as to highlight its main points for those who may not have had a chance to read it. Our paper proposing sustainable development as a theme for New Delhi is part of a project IISD began in 2002 to examine the linkages between the information society, Internet governance, and sustainable development. This project included both independent research and active participation in the Geneva and Tunis phases of WSIS, as well as the first two IGFs. So far, it has resulted in fifteen papers, reports and other publications, some of which are referenced in the paper and all of which are available for download at http://www.iisd.org/publications/publication_list.aspx?themeid=18&page=1 . One of these publications, "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda" was launched at the Rio IGF. The project grew out of IISD's observation that, even though there are increasingly close linkages between ICTs, the Internet and sustainable development in both developed and developing countries, the IG and SD policy communities operate in largely separate governance universes. The goal of the project is to help bridge this gap by encouraging members of the two communities to work together in areas where their interests are shared or complementary, and where each community could benefit from the others' experience, expertise, and policy leverage. We think the IGF provides an excellent opportunity to encourage stronger cooperation between the IG and SD communities for a number of reasons. * Since development is a cross-cutting theme of the IGF, the Forum would benefit from greater participation by sustainable development experts - directly through the contributions they could make to discussions, and indirectly through the influence IGF participation could exert on SD policies, programs and activities. * Since both communities have experience with multi-stakeholder governance models, and since both are committed to enhancing multi-stakeholder governance principles and processes in their respective areas, there may be lessons they can learn from each other's experience. * As demonstrated in our paper, cooperation and collaboration between the IG and SD communities could help fulfil many of the elements of the IGF mandate. * As discussed in the conclusion to "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda", there are significant, emerging linkages between the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in the IGF and other Internet governance forums on the one hand, and the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in sustainable development forums on the other hand. While we think all these points are important reasons why sustainable development should be a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why the relationship between Internet governance and sustainable development should be the subject of a plenary session, the latter point is perhaps the most important. IISD is convinced that a stable, secure Internet, which is accessible to all and which provides free, affordable access to information and knowledge, is prerequisite to achieving many of the major goals of the sustainable development community - goals such as poverty reduction through economic development that is environmentally and socially sustainable in the long term; mitigation of climate change; protection of natural resources; and new approaches to governance that engage government, the private sector, civil society, and the scientific and technical community in developing solutions to sustainability challenges. As a result of our involvement in the first two IGFs, we believe that the Forum can potentially play an important role in influencing the development of policies, programs and governance processes on issues related to Internet governance, at both the national and international levels, in ways that are conducive to sustainable development. However, to do this effectively, we think the third IGF needs to adopt a more focused approach to the development theme, and that it also needs to undertake a more rigorous and systematic analysis of the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. This is why we have proposed sustainable development as a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why we have suggested that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. If this proposal is accepted, we hope it will provide a foundation for engaging members of the sustainable development community in the work of the IGF, and result in benefits to both communities in terms of learning, collaborative action, policy effectiveness, and governance innovation. We hope this additional information is helpful, welcome comments on our paper, and look forward to next week's discussions. Best regards, Don MacLean -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: February 13, 2008 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main >Hi, > >Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging > >As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just one >session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens and >replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be >assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and >inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental >institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into >this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to >Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something there, >maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. Arghhh... what's the point of trying to report what the guy who leads the IGF secretariat is saying and what's going to come up in the MAG? The first paragraph of the IISD paper I mentioned would also be part of the push for ICT/environment/sustainable development in the IGF: 1. In response to the request for comments and views on the November 2007 Rio de Janeiro meeting, and suggestions regarding the format and content of the December 2008 New Delhi meeting, this paper proposes that Sustainable Development be considered as a theme for the New Delhi meeting, and that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to "exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development" etc etc available at Enjoy. Thanks, Adam >BD > >On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main >> themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful >> impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its >> mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in >> the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new >> themes during the May 2007 consultations. >> >> I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and >> other possible themes are welcome. >> >> >> 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' >> >> We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific >> issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the >> plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making >> what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that >> are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be >> chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. >> >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging >> policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main >> session themes. >> >> IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global >> Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be >> a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out >> with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body >> is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the >> area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important >> responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. >> >> We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue >> of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all >> for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing >> a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC >> contributions mention these) >> >> Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above >> >> (ends) >> >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 11:34:24 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:34:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050802180834y7305c056k82e0e4b25a8f2e0d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Don and greetings All: >From this portal, I look forward to reading your paper and other materials, and would be very much interested in some partnering. I cite specifically, in brief from your present post: "The goal of the project is to help bridge this gap by encouraging members of the two communities to work together in areas where their interests are shared or complementary, and where each community could benefit from the others' experience, expertise, and policy leverage." I hope you may find *Respectful Interfaces* compatible and fostering. Very best wishes, LDMF. Individual e-post. RESPITES, and etc.. For I.D.: *Programme of The Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. On 2/18/08, Don MacLean wrote: > > Dear Adam, > > A belated reply to this message to thank you for calling the list's > attention to the paper I co-authored with Tony Vetter and Heather Creech > of > IISD as a contribution to the February 26 preparatory meeting. In response > to some of the reaction that followed, we thought it would be useful to > provide some background information about the paper, as well as to > highlight > its main points for those who may not have had a chance to read it. > > Our paper proposing sustainable development as a theme for New Delhi is > part > of a project IISD began in 2002 to examine the linkages between the > information society, Internet governance, and sustainable development. > This > project included both independent research and active participation in the > Geneva and Tunis phases of WSIS, as well as the first two IGFs. So far, it > has resulted in fifteen papers, reports and other publications, some of > which are referenced in the paper and all of which are available for > download at > http://www.iisd.org/publications/publication_list.aspx?themeid=18&page=1 . > One of these publications, "Internet Governance and Sustainable > Development: > Towards a Common Agenda" was launched at the Rio IGF. > > The project grew out of IISD's observation that, even though there are > increasingly close linkages between ICTs, the Internet and sustainable > development in both developed and developing countries, the IG and SD > policy > communities operate in largely separate governance universes. The goal of > the project is to help bridge this gap by encouraging members of the two > communities to work together in areas where their interests are shared or > complementary, and where each community could benefit from the others' > experience, expertise, and policy leverage. > > We think the IGF provides an excellent opportunity to encourage stronger > cooperation between the IG and SD communities for a number of reasons. > > * Since development is a cross-cutting theme of the IGF, the Forum > would benefit from greater participation by sustainable development > experts > - directly through the contributions they could make to discussions, and > indirectly through the influence IGF participation could exert on SD > policies, programs and activities. > > * Since both communities have experience with multi-stakeholder > governance models, and since both are committed to enhancing > multi-stakeholder governance principles and processes in their respective > areas, there may be lessons they can learn from each other's experience. > > * As demonstrated in our paper, cooperation and collaboration > between > the IG and SD communities could help fulfil many of the elements of the > IGF > mandate. > > * As discussed in the conclusion to "Internet Governance and > Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda", there are significant, > emerging linkages between the technical, economic, social, and > environmental > dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in the IGF and > other > Internet governance forums on the one hand, and the technical, economic, > social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and > debated in sustainable development forums on the other hand. > > While we think all these points are important reasons why sustainable > development should be a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why the > relationship > between Internet governance and sustainable development should be the > subject of a plenary session, the latter point is perhaps the most > important. > > IISD is convinced that a stable, secure Internet, which is accessible to > all > and which provides free, affordable access to information and knowledge, > is > prerequisite to achieving many of the major goals of the sustainable > development community - goals such as poverty reduction through economic > development that is environmentally and socially sustainable in the long > term; mitigation of climate change; protection of natural resources; and > new > approaches to governance that engage government, the private sector, civil > society, and the scientific and technical community in developing > solutions > to sustainability challenges. > > As a result of our involvement in the first two IGFs, we believe that the > Forum can potentially play an important role in influencing the > development > of policies, programs and governance processes on issues related to > Internet > governance, at both the national and international levels, in ways that > are > conducive to sustainable development. However, to do this effectively, we > think the third IGF needs to adopt a more focused approach to the > development theme, and that it also needs to undertake a more rigorous and > systematic analysis of the linkages between Internet governance and > sustainable development. > > This is why we have proposed sustainable development as a theme of the New > Delhi IGF, and why we have suggested that one of its plenary sessions be > devoted to exploring the linkages between Internet governance and > sustainable development. If this proposal is accepted, we hope it will > provide a foundation for engaging members of the sustainable development > community in the work of the IGF, and result in benefits to both > communities > in terms of learning, collaborative action, policy effectiveness, and > governance innovation. > > We hope this additional information is helpful, welcome comments on our > paper, and look forward to next week's discussions. > > Best regards, > Don MacLean > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: February 13, 2008 11:23 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main > > >Hi, > > > >Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > > > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy > institutional > >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and > emerging > > > >As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just > one > >session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens > and > >replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could > be > >assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and > >inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental > >institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into > >this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to > >Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something > there, > >maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. > > > Arghhh... what's the point of trying to report > what the guy who leads the IGF secretariat is > saying and what's going to come up in the MAG? > > The first paragraph of the IISD paper I mentioned > would also be part of the push for > ICT/environment/sustainable development in the > IGF: > > 1. In response to the request for comments > and views on the November 2007 Rio de Janeiro > meeting, and suggestions regarding the format and > content of the December 2008 New Delhi meeting, > this paper proposes that Sustainable Development > be considered as a theme for the New Delhi > meeting, and that one of its plenary sessions be > devoted to "exploring the linkages between > Internet governance and sustainable development" > etc etc > > available at > < > http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Sustainable_Development%20-%20Theme_ > Proposal_for_IGF_New%20Delhi%20-%20IISD_FINAL.doc> > Enjoy. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >BD > > > >On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > >> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same > main > >> themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any > meaningful > >> impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its > >> mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main > themes > in > >> the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new > >> themes during the May 2007 consultations. > >> > >> I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, > and > >> other possible themes are welcome. > >> > >> > >> 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' > >> > >> We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more > specific > >> issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the > >> plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just > making > >> what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues > that > >> are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should > be > >> chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. > >> > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy > institutional > >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and > emerging > >> policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main > >> session themes. > >> > >> IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the > global > >> Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has > to be > >> a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come > out > >> with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. > No > body > >> is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges > in > the > >> area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an > important > >> responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. > >> > >> We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the > issue > >> of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in > all > >> for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to > developing > >> a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC > >> contributions mention these) > >> > >> Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of > the > > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above > >> > >> (ends) > >> > >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Feb 18 11:44:52 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:14:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080218164531.9A5EEA6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Parminder, thanks for this. Thanks to you too. The statement process can do with some engagement. > The Internet organizations > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > date, but should continue to be represented as a > separate stakeholder group. > > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > rules. I returned to TA, para 35, to get the stakeholder definition because some people were not agreeable to resolving the semantic problem about tech community. Our own feb and may 07 statements speak about tech community as cross cutting (along with academic community), and at another place, as the second, non-preferred, option for quota allocation speaks about the 'internet tech community'. Obviously, these two cannot be the same - it is apparent from the text. But people freely use the term 'tech community' for this latter category also... Now when we are asking MAG to clarifying rules, quotas etc (as asked for in 07 statements, and required to be asked now, even more topically) , we cannot say that well, it is a different matter that we ourselves are not clear about what these rules and quotas could be. Does it make any sense. Obviously clarifying rules means also some clarity on what is meant by each stakeholder category. We don’t know that I don’t see how can we speak about processes of self-selection - if category itself is not clear who will self select. Our intervention would be a meaningless gibberish, and would be taken as regular rhetoric CS is expected to dish out. So, if we have to have any meaning and internal coherence in asking for CS quota, clarification of rules, and meaningful self selection, we need to be ready to get some clarity ourselves. But, well... IN this para (35 of TA), ICANN plus will be covered under point (e)" International organizations.... (with a) role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies". And so I described them as international organizations. You want to call them internet organizations, I am fine with it. Or International Internet organizations. > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > TA, picking and choosing from that document could > dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much > reduced participation, perhaps even text about > stakeholders acting in their respective roles First I must agree with that stakeholders in their respective roles with CS assigned community level role is the dangerous part of TA. I am not sure if we failed to suggest policy advocacy role, and it was rejected. This role is accepted in other UN formulations, so I think should stand despite this omission in TA. As for going back to TA, I am also for looking forward, but when we find the forward is going in retrograde directions, like interpreting IGF is a minimalist manner, with little effectiveness in real public policy manners, it is better to seek safety of history. So, it all depends on what you real see as progress, and what regress.... As for IGF structure and mention of the bureau, I think we are not interpreting it quite right. Bureau I think is meant as a permanent secretariat like structure, which serves the IGF. We all will agree that such a process-related admin structure is needed. It is mentioned in para 78 which speaks of support structure and also mentions ITU's role in WSIS. Now ITU wasn’t any more substantive part of WSIS than other stakeholders, but yes, it arranged the WSIS. On IGF proper the operative part of TA is para 74 which call upon the UN SG to "examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum". This para speaks about "proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet governance and the need to ensure their full involvement", while para 78 speaks about " any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders". Obviously 74 is about IGF proper, and 78 about its support structure. It was entirely open to UN SG to interpret his freedom in organizing IGF as given by para 74 to examine and implement the option of a MS committee that had substantive identity which organized annual open IGF meetings and drew its legitimacy form it, while decided on process issues taking inputs from open consultations. The fact that this has not been done in my view, and many others, is a regressive development. We have the right to go back to TA to seek what we think are 'corrections'. >The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > TA You in an earlier email claimed legitimacy to the present organization of IGF from the first IGF consultations. I do not know who all attended, and represented what interests. It was too soon after WSIS and most stakeholders weren’t well organized for post WSIS (not that they are at present). This interpretation of what IGF and MAG will be is too big a thing to be decided by that small group. The issue should have been opened at Athens IGF to the full meeting - but at that time (and still is) there is a great hesitancy to allow structural issues to be examined. They refused IGFs proposal for a plenary on IGF role and mandate. BTW, the readiness to go back to TA to ensure our interests is the position of the IGC, as expressed in that main theme proposal, and the workshop we held. > I believe we should be looking to increase the > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety in the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle, and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up against. > >• As per above, if we leave, say, 6 > >seats for international organizations, > > > Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. > (And is it international organizations or > intergovernmental organizations and is there any > difference in the UN... I should know this!) IG part of TA mention international organization in the meaning of what you call Internet organizations (see para 35 e). Only those orgs that are involved in internet related standards and policy are meant here (some inter-gov organizations like ITU can claim to be included in this category but not all). > I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick. Yes, completely my fault. I picked up the number from memory of some discussion on this list. Will correct accordingly. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > snip > > >Membership of the MAG > >·         We think that 40 is a good number for > >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be > >rotated every year. > >·         The rules for membership of the MAG, > >including in terms of representation of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly > >established, and make open along with due > >justifications. We think that as per Tunis > >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > >should be divided equally among governments, > >civil society and the business sector. TA also > >rightly recognizes international organizations > >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and > >they should be allowed an appropriate number of > >seats in the MAG. > > > The Internet organizations > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > date, but should continue to be represented as a > separate stakeholder group. > > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > TA, picking and choosing from that document could > dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much > reduced participation, perhaps even text about > stakeholders acting in their respective roles. > > I believe we should be looking to increase the > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. > > > > >·         As per above, if we leave, say, 6 > >seats for international organizations, > > > Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. > (And is it international organizations or > intergovernmental organizations and is there any > difference in the UN... I should know this!) > > > > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be > >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil > >society members > > > I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick. > > That's all for now. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which > >should be corrected in this round of rotation of > >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we > >replace each retiring member with one from the > >same stakeholder group. Full civil society > >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > >for this new experiment in global governance. > >·         Stakeholder representatives should be > >chosen based on appropriate processes of > >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any > >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > >them, as completely representing the whole of > >that particular stakeholder group. This > >complicates the process of selection, especially > >in the case of civil society and business > >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > >selecting authority exercising a degree of > >judgment. This, however, should be done in a > >completely transparent manner. Deviations from > >the self-selection processes of stakeholder > >groups should be kept to the minimum and be > >defensible, and normally be explained. > >·         All stakeholders should be asked to > >keep in mind the need to adequately represent > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > >where applicable, special interest groups. > >Special Advisors and Chair > >·         The role and necessity of the Special > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >should be represented in the selection of > >Special Advisors as well. > >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > >case, we will like to understand the division of > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >government representative has already taken over > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >about the post-Delhi phase. > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >·         One function is of course to make all > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > >decision making processes to make them more > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > >its mandate. > >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > >for each main session and the set of workshops > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > >effectively. > >·         We will also like greater clarity at > >this point whether MAG has any substantive > >identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate > >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, > >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ > >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >looks highly impractical that these tasks can > >cohere in the UN SG. > >·         Having some authority and identity of > >its own is also required for MAG to do some > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > >engagement of all stakeholders. > >·         An annual report needs to be submitted > >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and > >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > >preparing this annual report, at present? It is > >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this > >report, with engagement of all stakeholder > >members. > >·         (Alternate text for the above point > >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and > >there is nothing very exciting about it. But > >every organization including IGF should have an > >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual > >report for the IGF. This report should mention > >IGF activities and performance for the year > >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out > >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. > >·         IGF should actively encourage regional > >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan > >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > >paragraph 80 of TA. > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > >untied public funds, is one of the central > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > >understand that a meeting among potential > >funders is being held in Geneva around the > >February consultations on this issue, and we > >look forward to some positive results from that > >meeting. > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > >and least developed countries to ensure > >meaningful participation in its open > >consultations. > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >aspect of the IGF. > >Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Cc: Parminder > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / ) > (00508305) > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC») > (00508306) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 18 12:00:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:30:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <02bc01c87249$9c3817c0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080218170126.8AD8CA6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> I myself was confused, and a google search didn't clarify much. But I thought that referring to a national/ state political thinking to characterize the dominant thinking of global tech community would be completely out of place, so I gave quarters to Suresh's comments and took them to refer to the dominant thinking associated with tech community called 'Californian ideology' which for all its fault is at least seen as an international phenomenon. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:46 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Hmmm... > > Separated by a common language... > > Suresh seems to be using the term "California Liberal" to refer (as US > folks > often do) to the propensity of certain highly visible Californians to > support the liberal/left Democrats (Barbara Streisand for example); > Parminder seems to be using the term "Californian Ideology"/"neo-liberals" > (following Bradbrook and others and as folks in LDC's often do) to refer > to > the "neo-liberalism" (of the (Milton) Friedmanite/Boys from Chicago) > strand > of "libertarianism" found particularly among certain folks from Silicon > Valley. > > (or have I got that wrong somewhere... > > MG > > -----Original Message-----c > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: February 18, 2008 6:31 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Milton L Mueller' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular group > of > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't like > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies .. > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post thread > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going > to > fall flat? > > srs > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > > if there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. > > This is UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it > > to accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > > leverage...) rather than think of a reduction. > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > > > any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't > > > happen. > > We > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > since > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > large a > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > specific > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > > > is underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > number > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > > MAG > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > > the > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > > > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that > > > can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I > > > have gone > > by > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > > this > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > > > confusion about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 18 12:16:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:46:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080218171647.BADA3A6C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Don, I am not sure if this is a proposal to include the suggested theme in IGC's statement to MAG... If so, is it possible for you to work with Thomas Lowenhaupt who has proposed the theme "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable Global Cities" (see his email earlier today) to bring up a common title and description of what could be a main session theme. I am not sure if this will be possible, but since the two topics have some relationship it will be useful if we can propose a consensus theme on ICTs and environment issue. I must mention that we will like a statement of relatively clear issues that have bearing on a global level in the Internet policy area. However, the title and description should still be sufficiently broad to be able to pull in multiple strands of the overarching issue, since we are here proposing main session themes which are expected to have a number of workshops associated with them. Others may comment on this, as well the two other proposed themes. Parminder _____________________________________________ From: Don MacLean [mailto:donjmac at sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' Cc: 'Heather Creech'; 'Tony Vetter'; 'Maja Andjelkovic' Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Dear Adam, A belated reply to this message to thank you for calling the list's attention to the paper I co-authored with Tony Vetter and Heather Creech of IISD as a contribution to the February 26 preparatory meeting. In response to some of the reaction that followed, we thought it would be useful to provide some background information about the paper, as well as to highlight its main points for those who may not have had a chance to read it. Our paper proposing sustainable development as a theme for New Delhi is part of a project IISD began in 2002 to examine the linkages between the information society, Internet governance, and sustainable development. This project included both independent research and active participation in the Geneva and Tunis phases of WSIS, as well as the first two IGFs. So far, it has resulted in fifteen papers, reports and other publications, some of which are referenced in the paper and all of which are available for download at http://www.iisd.org/publications/publication_list.aspx?themeid=18&page=1 . One of these publications, "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda" was launched at the Rio IGF. The project grew out of IISD's observation that, even though there are increasingly close linkages between ICTs, the Internet and sustainable development in both developed and developing countries, the IG and SD policy communities operate in largely separate governance universes. The goal of the project is to help bridge this gap by encouraging members of the two communities to work together in areas where their interests are shared or complementary, and where each community could benefit from the others' experience, expertise, and policy leverage. We think the IGF provides an excellent opportunity to encourage stronger cooperation between the IG and SD communities for a number of reasons. * Since development is a cross-cutting theme of the IGF, the Forum would benefit from greater participation by sustainable development experts - directly through the contributions they could make to discussions, and indirectly through the influence IGF participation could exert on SD policies, programs and activities. * Since both communities have experience with multi-stakeholder governance models, and since both are committed to enhancing multi-stakeholder governance principles and processes in their respective areas, there may be lessons they can learn from each other's experience. * As demonstrated in our paper, cooperation and collaboration between the IG and SD communities could help fulfil many of the elements of the IGF mandate. * As discussed in the conclusion to "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda", there are significant, emerging linkages between the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in the IGF and other Internet governance forums on the one hand, and the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in sustainable development forums on the other hand. While we think all these points are important reasons why sustainable development should be a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why the relationship between Internet governance and sustainable development should be the subject of a plenary session, the latter point is perhaps the most important. IISD is convinced that a stable, secure Internet, which is accessible to all and which provides free, affordable access to information and knowledge, is prerequisite to achieving many of the major goals of the sustainable development community - goals such as poverty reduction through economic development that is environmentally and socially sustainable in the long term; mitigation of climate change; protection of natural resources; and new approaches to governance that engage government, the private sector, civil society, and the scientific and technical community in developing solutions to sustainability challenges. As a result of our involvement in the first two IGFs, we believe that the Forum can potentially play an important role in influencing the development of policies, programs and governance processes on issues related to Internet governance, at both the national and international levels, in ways that are conducive to sustainable development. However, to do this effectively, we think the third IGF needs to adopt a more focused approach to the development theme, and that it also needs to undertake a more rigorous and systematic analysis of the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. This is why we have proposed sustainable development as a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why we have suggested that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. If this proposal is accepted, we hope it will provide a foundation for engaging members of the sustainable development community in the work of the IGF, and result in benefits to both communities in terms of learning, collaborative action, policy effectiveness, and governance innovation. We hope this additional information is helpful, welcome comments on our paper, and look forward to next week's discussions. Best regards, Don MacLean -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: February 13, 2008 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main >Hi, > >Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging > >As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just one >session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens and >replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be >assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and >inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental >institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into >this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to >Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something there, >maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. Arghhh... what's the point of trying to report what the guy who leads the IGF secretariat is saying and what's going to come up in the MAG? The first paragraph of the IISD paper I mentioned would also be part of the push for ICT/environment/sustainable development in the IGF: 1. In response to the request for comments and views on the November 2007 Rio de Janeiro meeting, and suggestions regarding the format and content of the December 2008 New Delhi meeting, this paper proposes that Sustainable Development be considered as a theme for the New Delhi meeting, and that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to "exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development" etc etc available at Enjoy. Thanks, Adam >BD > >On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main >> themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful >> impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its >> mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in >> the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new >> themes during the May 2007 consultations. >> >> I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and >> other possible themes are welcome. >> >> >> 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' >> >> We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific >> issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the >> plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making >> what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that >> are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be >> chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. >> >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging >> policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main >> session themes. >> >> IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global >> Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be >> a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out >> with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body >> is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the >> area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important >> responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. >> >> We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue >> of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all >> for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing >> a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC >> contributions mention these) >> >> Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above >> >> (ends) >> >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 28890 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Feb 18 12:28:51 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:28:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080218132509.C979FE0752@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2E8A7444-218E-4E13-A806-B553FE87309E@ras.eu.org> Hi Parminder and al. Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit : > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > number 40 – do you want the sentence ‘We think that 40 is a good > number for MAG members’ struck off. I am unable to specifically > call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable > opposition to this. > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number > that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps – but > I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that > allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS > numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, > so there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted. > I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own name during the meeting). We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:) Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs involved in the field, and you're set. another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right? Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case.. Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less seats than other stakeholders. EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true stakeholders:)) I hardly see any other option. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From donjmac at sympatico.ca Mon Feb 18 12:57:29 2008 From: donjmac at sympatico.ca (Don MacLean) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:57:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main In-Reply-To: <6dkuqd$ld89md@toip22.srvr.bell.ca> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, My apologies if the delay in following up on Adam's message of February 12 regarding the IISD proposal has caused confusion at a time when you're finalizing the IGC statement to MAG. What I wrote was not a proposal to include the theme proposed by IISD in the ICG statement. It was simply intended to provide background information on the proposal, to highlight some of its key points for those who may not have had a chance to read it, and to invite comments from IGC members either by email or at the preparatory meeting in Geneva on February 26. As you will see from the IISD web site (http://www.iisd.org) the Institute is itself a multi-stakeholder venture, and hopes that civil society, government and the business community participants in IGF will all take an interest in its proposal. Don -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: February 18, 2008 12:16 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Don MacLean'; 'Adam Peake'; toml at communisphere.com Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Don, I am not sure if this is a proposal to include the suggested theme in IGC's statement to MAG... If so, is it possible for you to work with Thomas Lowenhaupt who has proposed the theme "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable Global Cities" (see his email earlier today) to bring up a common title and description of what could be a main session theme. I am not sure if this will be possible, but since the two topics have some relationship it will be useful if we can propose a consensus theme on ICTs and environment issue. I must mention that we will like a statement of relatively clear issues that have bearing on a global level in the Internet policy area. However, the title and description should still be sufficiently broad to be able to pull in multiple strands of the overarching issue, since we are here proposing main session themes which are expected to have a number of workshops associated with them. Others may comment on this, as well the two other proposed themes. Parminder _____________________________________________ From: Don MacLean [mailto:donjmac at sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' Cc: 'Heather Creech'; 'Tony Vetter'; 'Maja Andjelkovic' Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main Dear Adam, A belated reply to this message to thank you for calling the list's attention to the paper I co-authored with Tony Vetter and Heather Creech of IISD as a contribution to the February 26 preparatory meeting. In response to some of the reaction that followed, we thought it would be useful to provide some background information about the paper, as well as to highlight its main points for those who may not have had a chance to read it. Our paper proposing sustainable development as a theme for New Delhi is part of a project IISD began in 2002 to examine the linkages between the information society, Internet governance, and sustainable development. This project included both independent research and active participation in the Geneva and Tunis phases of WSIS, as well as the first two IGFs. So far, it has resulted in fifteen papers, reports and other publications, some of which are referenced in the paper and all of which are available for download at http://www.iisd.org/publications/publication_list.aspx?themeid=18&page=1 . One of these publications, "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda" was launched at the Rio IGF. The project grew out of IISD's observation that, even though there are increasingly close linkages between ICTs, the Internet and sustainable development in both developed and developing countries, the IG and SD policy communities operate in largely separate governance universes. The goal of the project is to help bridge this gap by encouraging members of the two communities to work together in areas where their interests are shared or complementary, and where each community could benefit from the others' experience, expertise, and policy leverage. We think the IGF provides an excellent opportunity to encourage stronger cooperation between the IG and SD communities for a number of reasons. * Since development is a cross-cutting theme of the IGF, the Forum would benefit from greater participation by sustainable development experts - directly through the contributions they could make to discussions, and indirectly through the influence IGF participation could exert on SD policies, programs and activities. * Since both communities have experience with multi-stakeholder governance models, and since both are committed to enhancing multi-stakeholder governance principles and processes in their respective areas, there may be lessons they can learn from each other's experience. * As demonstrated in our paper, cooperation and collaboration between the IG and SD communities could help fulfil many of the elements of the IGF mandate. * As discussed in the conclusion to "Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common Agenda", there are significant, emerging linkages between the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in the IGF and other Internet governance forums on the one hand, and the technical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of many of the issues discussed and debated in sustainable development forums on the other hand. While we think all these points are important reasons why sustainable development should be a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why the relationship between Internet governance and sustainable development should be the subject of a plenary session, the latter point is perhaps the most important. IISD is convinced that a stable, secure Internet, which is accessible to all and which provides free, affordable access to information and knowledge, is prerequisite to achieving many of the major goals of the sustainable development community - goals such as poverty reduction through economic development that is environmentally and socially sustainable in the long term; mitigation of climate change; protection of natural resources; and new approaches to governance that engage government, the private sector, civil society, and the scientific and technical community in developing solutions to sustainability challenges. As a result of our involvement in the first two IGFs, we believe that the Forum can potentially play an important role in influencing the development of policies, programs and governance processes on issues related to Internet governance, at both the national and international levels, in ways that are conducive to sustainable development. However, to do this effectively, we think the third IGF needs to adopt a more focused approach to the development theme, and that it also needs to undertake a more rigorous and systematic analysis of the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. This is why we have proposed sustainable development as a theme of the New Delhi IGF, and why we have suggested that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development. If this proposal is accepted, we hope it will provide a foundation for engaging members of the sustainable development community in the work of the IGF, and result in benefits to both communities in terms of learning, collaborative action, policy effectiveness, and governance innovation. We hope this additional information is helpful, welcome comments on our paper, and look forward to next week's discussions. Best regards, Don MacLean -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: February 13, 2008 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main >Hi, > >Too much mail so briefly, I hope we can suggest > >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging > >As an overarching focus of the meeting (and the forum), rather than just one >session. Do away with the four generic main session topics from Athens and >replace with new ones, one of which could be development, another could be >assessing implementation of the WSIS principles (how are transparency and >inclusion done across native administrative and intergovernmental >institutions, best practices etc---a linked workshop could go deeper into >this). If someone could explain IG and the environment (as opposed to >Internet/ICT and the environment) and we can agree there's something there, >maybe that'd interest people and please Fujitsu etc. Arghhh... what's the point of trying to report what the guy who leads the IGF secretariat is saying and what's going to come up in the MAG? The first paragraph of the IISD paper I mentioned would also be part of the push for ICT/environment/sustainable development in the IGF: 1. In response to the request for comments and views on the November 2007 Rio de Janeiro meeting, and suggestions regarding the format and content of the December 2008 New Delhi meeting, this paper proposes that Sustainable Development be considered as a theme for the New Delhi meeting, and that one of its plenary sessions be devoted to "exploring the linkages between Internet governance and sustainable development" etc etc available at Enjoy. Thanks, Adam >BD > >On 2/13/08 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main >> themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful >> impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its >> mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in >> the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new >> themes during the May 2007 consultations. >> >> I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and >> other possible themes are welcome. >> >> >> 'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi' >> >> We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific >> issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the >> plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making >> what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that >> are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be >> chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit. >> >> We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional >> framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging >> policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main >> session themes. >> >> IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global >> Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be >> a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out >> with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body >> is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the >> area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important >> responsibility of doing this as per its mandate. >> >> We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue >> of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all >> for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing >> a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC >> contributions mention these) >> >> Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the > > current global policy institutional framework' proposed above >> >> (ends) >> >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 29824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 18 12:59:48 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:29:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080218180049.932EEE0726@smtp3.electricembers.net> > The Internet organizations > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > date, but should continue to be represented as a > separate stakeholder group. What about the following text. • The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a separate stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members. . There are some views that a smaller MAG may be more effective. However if we go by the present membership of MAG which is 40, 6 should be a good number for representing Internet organizations. Out of the remaining 34 seats civil society should be entitled to 11 seats. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should also be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. The present text is as follows. · The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Parminder, thanks for this. > > > > > snip > > >Membership of the MAG > >· We think that 40 is a good number for > >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be > >rotated every year. > >· The rules for membership of the MAG, > >including in terms of representation of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly > >established, and make open along with due > >justifications. We think that as per Tunis > >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > >should be divided equally among governments, > >civil society and the business sector. TA also > >rightly recognizes international organizations > >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and > >they should be allowed an appropriate number of > >seats in the MAG. > > > The Internet organizations > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > date, but should continue to be represented as a > separate stakeholder group. > > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > TA, picking and choosing from that document could > dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much > reduced participation, perhaps even text about > stakeholders acting in their respective roles. > > I believe we should be looking to increase the > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. > > > > >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6 > >seats for international organizations, > > > Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. > (And is it international organizations or > intergovernmental organizations and is there any > difference in the UN... I should know this!) > > > > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be > >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil > >society members > > > I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick. > > That's all for now. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which > >should be corrected in this round of rotation of > >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we > >replace each retiring member with one from the > >same stakeholder group. Full civil society > >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > >for this new experiment in global governance. > >· Stakeholder representatives should be > >chosen based on appropriate processes of > >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any > >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > >them, as completely representing the whole of > >that particular stakeholder group. This > >complicates the process of selection, especially > >in the case of civil society and business > >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > >selecting authority exercising a degree of > >judgment. This, however, should be done in a > >completely transparent manner. Deviations from > >the self-selection processes of stakeholder > >groups should be kept to the minimum and be > >defensible, and normally be explained. > >· All stakeholders should be asked to > >keep in mind the need to adequately represent > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > >where applicable, special interest groups. > >Special Advisors and Chair > >· The role and necessity of the Special > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >should be represented in the selection of > >Special Advisors as well. > >· We are of the opinion that in keeping > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > >case, we will like to understand the division of > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >government representative has already taken over > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >about the post-Delhi phase. > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >· One function is of course to make all > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > >decision making processes to make them more > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > >its mandate. > >· It will be very useful for MAG to work > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > >for each main session and the set of workshops > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > >effectively. > >· We will also like greater clarity at > >this point whether MAG has any substantive > >identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate > >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, > >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ > >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >looks highly impractical that these tasks can > >cohere in the UN SG. > >· Having some authority and identity of > >its own is also required for MAG to do some > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > >engagement of all stakeholders. > >· An annual report needs to be submitted > >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and > >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > >preparing this annual report, at present? It is > >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this > >report, with engagement of all stakeholder > >members. > >· (Alternate text for the above point > >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and > >there is nothing very exciting about it. But > >every organization including IGF should have an > >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual > >report for the IGF. This report should mention > >IGF activities and performance for the year > >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out > >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. > >· IGF should actively encourage regional > >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan > >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > >paragraph 80 of TA. > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > >untied public funds, is one of the central > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > >understand that a meeting among potential > >funders is being held in Geneva around the > >February consultations on this issue, and we > >look forward to some positive results from that > >meeting. > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > >and least developed countries to ensure > >meaningful participation in its open > >consultations. > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >aspect of the IGF. > >Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Cc: Parminder > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / ) > (00508305) > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC») > (00508306) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Feb 18 13:01:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:31:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629373@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080218180237.E2F34E049A@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton Ok, we will remove the sentence where we say 40 is a good number. > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in specific numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is underrepresented. Are you sure we don't ask for clear numbers knowing that, as Carlos and others have suggested, it isn't going to be less than 40, and almost certainly continue to be 40. If we just say Internet orgs should be reduced to an appropriate number and CS representation increased to an appropriate number I am not sure it will to be taken to mean anything. Clear numbers however stick in people's minds, as a clearly stated demand, whatever they may or may not do about it. Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. We certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, since the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that large a number. I also support those who warned you against getting involved in specific numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is underrepresented. _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the number 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted. -------------- 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 Mon Feb 18 13:14:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:44:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <2E8A7444-218E-4E13-A806-B553FE87309E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any > number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find > 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this > caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own > name during the meeting). I am removing the part on '40 is a good number'. But pl see my email to Milton - if we do not any give numbers, and just say appropriate number for Int orgs and appropriate number for CS, they will say yes, we will give you appropriate numbers... Nor are we ready to say give us one fourth, bec we think Int orgs are represented as a special group. > Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too > much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and > diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you > say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved > in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less > seats than other stakeholders. > EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats > as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather > organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal > stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their > difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should > be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true > stakeholders:)) > I hardly see any other option. Right. I will remove reference to speaking about stakeholder category for Int orgs and just say they need to be represented. Something like The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the MAG. Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members. Instead of (as present) The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a separate stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Hi Parminder and al. > > Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit : > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > number 40 – do you want the sentence ‘We think that 40 is a good > > number for MAG members’ struck off. I am unable to specifically > > call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable > > opposition to this. > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number > > that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps – but > > I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that > > allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS > > numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, > > so there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any > number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find > 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this > caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own > name during the meeting). > We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and > keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions > among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:) > > Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be > qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be > involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a > reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs > involved in the field, and you're set. > > another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated > every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right? > Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case.. > > Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too > much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and > diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you > say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved > in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less > seats than other stakeholders. > EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats > as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather > organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal > stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their > difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should > be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true > stakeholders:)) > I hardly see any other option. > > Best, > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 13:42:35 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:42:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <20080218164531.9A5EEA6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <031401c8725e$081d2840$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Thanks for the opening Parminder and note that I've changed the subject linel... As some of you will recall, the WSIS was nominally directed towards linking ICTs with the "development agenda". Much of CS participation in the first (and ostensibly 'substantive") Geneva round (and led by Bill McIver and others) was to deal with ICT4D issues. It was only in the second (Tunis round) that "governance" issues came to the fore and where CS (through this list) and others began to focus more or less all of its attention onto those matters through the IGF. The designation of groups for post-WSIS "implementation" has meant that most of the substantive issues were assigned to one or another of the UN paper mills never again to see the light of day among non-paper millsian folks... Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the ICT4D side through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed from the UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005... Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of CS, and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and focal point for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy discussions cf. Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, and Tom Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme. In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" (the Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with Intel and through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing programmatic initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity initiative)). In addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized participation, and little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy". In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its own vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a theme) begun a measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space. Back to what Parminder points to below... Before the Rio IGF I did an informal survey among the various e-lists where grassroots ICT4D engaged parties would be found to determine how many of them might be attending the IGF. I got, I believe 3 positive replies--one of whom was an official who would likely be sent as part of a delegation, and two were from Brazil who might be attending out of some general interest in the subject... (of course there may have been more, who didn't reply but the email was circulated to the 3 or 4000 folks who would most likely have an interest (from a "bottom up perspective") in ICT4D policy issues. The recent GK3 conference in KL on the other hand had very large numbers of the relevent ICT4D folks, virtually no participation from the CS folks on this list (at least by casual observation) and again willfully and evidently deliberately stayed away from substantive policy discussion in favour of case studies, how to's, presentations of programs etc.etc. To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate forum for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small sub-section where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...) The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired outcomes (for the events). ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a subsidiary spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D folks can make themselves heard. How or where to do this, I have no idea at this point, but that a gap exists becomes more evident each day. Michael Gurstein M. Gurstein (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 -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: February 18, 2008 8:45 AM To: 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > I believe we should be looking to increase the > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety in the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle, and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up against. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > snip > > >Membership of the MAG > >·         We think that 40 is a good number for > >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be > >rotated every year. > >·         The rules for membership of the MAG, > >including in terms of representation of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly > >established, and make open along with due > >justifications. We think that as per Tunis > >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > >should be divided equally among governments, > >civil society and the business sector. TA also > >rightly recognizes international organizations > >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and > >they should be allowed an appropriate number of > >seats in the MAG. > > > The Internet organizations > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > date, but should continue to be represented as a > separate stakeholder group. > > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > TA, picking and choosing from that document could > dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much > reduced participation, perhaps even text about > stakeholders acting in their respective roles. > > I believe we should be looking to increase the > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. > > > > >·         As per above, if we leave, say, 6 > >seats for international organizations, > > > Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. > (And is it international organizations or > intergovernmental organizations and is there any > difference in the UN... I should know this!) > > > > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be > >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil > >society members > > > I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and > Erick. > > That's all for now. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which > >should be corrected in this round of rotation of > >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we > >replace each retiring member with one from the > >same stakeholder group. Full civil society > >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > >for this new experiment in global governance. > >·         Stakeholder representatives should be > >chosen based on appropriate processes of > >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any > >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > >them, as completely representing the whole of > >that particular stakeholder group. This > >complicates the process of selection, especially > >in the case of civil society and business > >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > >selecting authority exercising a degree of > >judgment. This, however, should be done in a > >completely transparent manner. Deviations from > >the self-selection processes of stakeholder > >groups should be kept to the minimum and be > >defensible, and normally be explained. > >·         All stakeholders should be asked to > >keep in mind the need to adequately represent > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > >where applicable, special interest groups. > >Special Advisors and Chair > >·         The role and necessity of the Special > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >should be represented in the selection of > >Special Advisors as well. > >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > >case, we will like to understand the division of > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >government representative has already taken over > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >about the post-Delhi phase. > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >·         One function is of course to make all > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > >decision making processes to make them more > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > >its mandate. > >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > >for each main session and the set of workshops > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > >effectively. > >·         We will also like greater clarity at > >this point whether MAG has any substantive > >identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate > >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, > >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ > >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >looks highly impractical that these tasks can > >cohere in the UN SG. > >·         Having some authority and identity of > >its own is also required for MAG to do some > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > >engagement of all stakeholders. > >·         An annual report needs to be submitted > >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and > >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > >preparing this annual report, at present? It is > >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this > >report, with engagement of all stakeholder > >members. > >·         (Alternate text for the above point > >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and > >there is nothing very exciting about it. But > >every organization including IGF should have an > >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual > >report for the IGF. This report should mention > >IGF activities and performance for the year > >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out > >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. > >·         IGF should actively encourage regional > >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan > >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > >paragraph 80 of TA. > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > >untied public funds, is one of the central > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the > >meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among > >potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > >February consultations on this issue, and we > >look forward to some positive results from that > >meeting. > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > >and least developed countries to ensure > >meaningful participation in its open > >consultations. > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >aspect of the IGF. > >Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Cc: Parminder > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / ) > (00508305) > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC») > (00508306) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Feb 18 13:43:27 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:43:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1DB3A08E-0757-454D-9F93-82987E111D07@ras.eu.org> Parminder, thanks for your patience with us all! Let me consider your latest proposal: > . The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > open > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > equally > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > we agree > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in > the MAG. > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > envisaged process of rotation of members. > . There are some views that a smaller MAG may be more effective. > However if we go by the present membership of MAG which is 40, 6 > should be a good number for representing Internet organizations. > Out of the remaining 34 seats civil society should be entitled to > 11 seats. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG > of 40, an anomaly which should also be corrected in this round of > rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace > each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full > civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for > this new experiment in global governance. What about this: . The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation should be corrected. Best, Meryem Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:14, Parminder a écrit : > >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own >> name during the meeting). > > I am removing the part on '40 is a good number'. But pl see my > email to > Milton - if we do not any give numbers, and just say appropriate > number for > Int orgs and appropriate number for CS, they will say yes, we will > give you > appropriate numbers... Nor are we ready to say give us one fourth, > bec we > think Int orgs are represented as a special group. > > >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less >> seats than other stakeholders. >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true >> stakeholders:)) >> I hardly see any other option. > > Right. I will remove reference to speaking about stakeholder > category for > Int orgs and just say they need to be represented. > > > Something like > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > open > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > equally > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > we agree > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in > the MAG. > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > Instead of (as present) > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > open > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > equally > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > we agree > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a > separate > stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation > however > should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members. > > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG >> >> Hi Parminder and al. >> >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit : >> >>> Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the >>> number 40 – do you want the sentence ‘We think that 40 is a good >>> number for MAG members’ struck off. I am unable to specifically >>> call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable >>> opposition to this. >>> >>> Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the >>> statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For >>> this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part >>> of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number >>> that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps – but >>> I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that >>> allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS >>> numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, >>> so there can be no confusion about how this number may be >>> interpreted. >>> >> >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own >> name during the meeting). >> We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and >> keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions >> among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:) >> >> Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be >> qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be >> involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a >> reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs >> involved in the field, and you're set. >> >> another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated >> every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right? >> Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case.. >> >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less >> seats than other stakeholders. >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true >> stakeholders:)) >> I hardly see any other option. >> >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Feb 18 13:47:01 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:47:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms In-Reply-To: <20080218043816.GF14821@hserus.net> References: <47B43649.4040206@iafrica.com> <20080214125402.GA16428@hserus.net> <20080217001315.GB11111@hserus.net> <20080218043816.GF14821@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 8:38 PM -0800 2/17/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >I will not post further about this here, as it is off topic for this >mailing list. Fair enough, I will not bother to respond to your further enumeration of posts in detail as I don't have the time either. If today hadn't been a holiday in the US even this response would have had to wait until at least next weekend. I'm afraid I won't have much time to allocate to this offlist either. Just this: >>In *my* personal hierarchy of values, free speech trumps rejecting spam. >>And that means that I agree in principle with the motivation of Gilmore's > >I do hate slippery slope arguments. They are always the first to be >trotted out in such cases, and rebuttal takes quite some time though they >are patently absurd [yes that is a logical fallacy of some sort but its >late, i am just off a plane in sanfran after 16 hours in the air, so ..] Well, no, your position (that slippery slope arguments are "patently absurd") is not a logical argument. It is a value statement (with which I certainly disagree), and your value judgment is often associated with certain political ideologies. It is akin to arguments that admit only "immediate causality" in understanding and explaining complex systems such as human sociopolitical communities. Rejection of slippery slopes and dismissal of complex causality are precisely the kinds of arguments made, for example, by those who continue to reject the human impact on global warming as "still unproven". Like the proverbial frog in a pot of water undergoing gradual ongoing heating, if you wait until you have "incontrovertible proof" that you are boiling to death, it is often too late to do anything effective about it except complain that "well, we didn't *know*..." and prepare to die. It is not a formula for effective public policy. Slippery slopes are rampant in politics, and in fact they are often effective tools for getting unpopular policy established "under the radar" -- they are part of what corrupts the political process by avoiding accountability in representative governance. Like a cloud which has an inside and an outside but no clear boundary between the two (only a gradient), if you accept only clear boundaries you will be subject to gradients of all kinds, unawares. This can be used to manipulate people into ignoring political gradients that are set up in a highly intentional manner to justify the stepwise path into an inadvisable and avoidable political future. In political contexts, your position is a highly conservative stance (in both the political and generic senses). It is one area where political conservatives and progressives have a fundamental contrast of values, and one reason I call myself a progressive. You can feel free to hate slippery slope arguments, but if you attempt to marshal logical arguments to bolster your position you will be following your heart with your mind, not the other way around (which is usually what people claim, and even believe). The French have a wise saying which I've heard translated as "The Heart has its reasons, of which the Reason knows nothing." Make no mistake which "seat of reason" has the systematic advantage here, especially in political contexts. Dan PS -- I should point out that while conservative rhetoric rejects slippery slope arguments, conservative political forces often still use slippery slopes as a tool to get the political results they want, nevertheless. This systematic dissociation between rhetoric and action is part of what leads progressives to distrust conservatives, as it looks elitist and paternalistic and aimed to undermine the participatory dynamic of citizen voice (by creating a fictitious "public myth" to sway the masses to support narrowly-beneficial political ends). -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 13:52:49 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:52:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <031401c8725e$081d2840$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <20080218164531.9A5EEA6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <031401c8725e$081d2840$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <45ed74050802181052g130faf85y78ba65783874f662@mail.gmail.com> Hi Michael and all, Helpful desorption of he oftimes branchings-off ... and just to add a footnote, there is very little if anything I witness at or re. the United Nations that is not at least pledged to Development. And expressly so. So this discussion is timely indeed. Best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* On 2/18/08, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for the opening Parminder and note that I've changed the subject > linel... > > As some of you will recall, the WSIS was nominally directed towards > linking > ICTs with the "development agenda". Much of CS participation in the first > (and ostensibly 'substantive") Geneva round (and led by Bill McIver and > others) was to deal with ICT4D issues. > > It was only in the second (Tunis round) that "governance" issues came to > the > fore and where CS (through this list) and others began to focus more or > less > all of its attention onto those matters through the IGF. > > The designation of groups for post-WSIS "implementation" has meant that > most > of the substantive issues were assigned to one or another of the UN paper > mills never again to see the light of day among non-paper millsian > folks... > > Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be > proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the ICT4D > side > through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed from > the > UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005... > > Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of CS, > and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and focal > point > for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy discussions cf. > Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, and Tom > Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme. > > In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" (the > Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a > programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with Intel and > through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing programmatic > initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity initiative)). In > addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and > top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the > sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little > coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized participation, and > little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy". > > In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its own > vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a theme) begun > a > measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space. > > Back to what Parminder points to below... Before the Rio IGF I did an > informal survey among the various e-lists where grassroots ICT4D engaged > parties would be found to determine how many of them might be attending > the > IGF. I got, I believe 3 positive replies--one of whom was an official who > would likely be sent as part of a delegation, and two were from Brazil who > might be attending out of some general interest in the subject... (of > course > there may have been more, who didn't reply but the email was circulated to > the 3 or 4000 folks who would most likely have an interest (from a "bottom > up perspective") in ICT4D policy issues. > > The recent GK3 conference in KL on the other hand had very large numbers > of > the relevent ICT4D folks, virtually no participation from the CS folks on > this list (at least by casual observation) and again willfully and > evidently > deliberately stayed away from substantive policy discussion in favour of > case studies, how to's, presentations of programs etc.etc. > > To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate > forum > for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small sub-section > where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...) > > The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in > representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired outcomes > (for > the events). ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a > subsidiary > spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and > particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D folks can > make themselves heard. > > How or where to do this, I have no idea at this point, but that a gap > exists > becomes more evident each day. > > Michael Gurstein > > M. Gurstein (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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: February 18, 2008 8:45 AM > To: 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > I believe we should be looking to increase the > > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. > > But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be > fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep > claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety > in > the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle, > and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up > against. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > >Membership of the MAG > > >· We think that 40 is a good number for > > >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be > > >rotated every year. > > >· The rules for membership of the MAG, > > >including in terms of representation of > > >different stakeholders, should be clearly > > >established, and make open along with due > > >justifications. We think that as per Tunis > > >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > > >should be divided equally among governments, > > >civil society and the business sector. TA also > > >rightly recognizes international organizations > > >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and > > >they should be allowed an appropriate number of > > >seats in the MAG. > > > > > > The Internet organizations > > (technical/administrative community, whatever, > > the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to > > date, but should continue to be represented as a > > separate stakeholder group. > > > > I disagree with returning to the TA looking for > > rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the > > TA, picking and choosing from that document could > > dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much > > reduced participation, perhaps even text about > > stakeholders acting in their respective roles. > > > > I believe we should be looking to increase the > > number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?) > > not trying to put things back in WSIS style > > boxes. Expanding participation is progress. > > > > > > > > >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6 > > >seats for international organizations, > > > > > > Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role. > > (And is it international organizations or > > intergovernmental organizations and is there any > > difference in the UN... I should know this!) > > > > > > > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be > > >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil > > >society members > > > > > > I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and > > Erick. > > > > That's all for now. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which > > >should be corrected in this round of rotation of > > >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we > > >replace each retiring member with one from the > > >same stakeholder group. Full civil society > > >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > > >for this new experiment in global governance. > > >· Stakeholder representatives should be > > >chosen based on appropriate processes of > > >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > > >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any > > >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > > >them, as completely representing the whole of > > >that particular stakeholder group. This > > >complicates the process of selection, especially > > >in the case of civil society and business > > >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > > >selecting authority exercising a degree of > > >judgment. This, however, should be done in a > > >completely transparent manner. Deviations from > > >the self-selection processes of stakeholder > > >groups should be kept to the minimum and be > > >defensible, and normally be explained. > > >· All stakeholders should be asked to > > >keep in mind the need to adequately represent > > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > > >where applicable, special interest groups. > > >Special Advisors and Chair > > >· The role and necessity of the Special > > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > > >should be represented in the selection of > > >Special Advisors as well. > > >· We are of the opinion that in keeping > > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > > >case, we will like to understand the division of > > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > > >government representative has already taken over > > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > > >about the post-Delhi phase. > > >Role and Structure of the MAG > > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > >· One function is of course to make all > > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > > >decision making processes to make them more > > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > > >its mandate. > > >· It will be very useful for MAG to work > > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > > >for each main session and the set of workshops > > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > > >effectively. > > >· We will also like greater clarity at > > >this point whether MAG has any substantive > > >identity other than advising the UN SG. For > > >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate > > >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, > > >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ > > >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > > >looks highly impractical that these tasks can > > >cohere in the UN SG. > > >· Having some authority and identity of > > >its own is also required for MAG to do some > > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > > >engagement of all stakeholders. > > >· An annual report needs to be submitted > > >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and > > >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > > >preparing this annual report, at present? It is > > >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this > > >report, with engagement of all stakeholder > > >members. > > >· (Alternate text for the above point > > >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and > > >there is nothing very exciting about it. But > > >every organization including IGF should have an > > >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual > > >report for the IGF. This report should mention > > >IGF activities and performance for the year > > >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out > > >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > > >ahead. > > >· IGF should actively encourage regional > > >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan > > >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > > >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > > >paragraph 80 of TA. > > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > > >untied public funds, is one of the central > > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the > > >meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among > > >potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > > >February consultations on this issue, and we > > >look forward to some positive results from that > > >meeting. > > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > > >and least developed countries to ensure > > >meaningful participation in its open > > >consultations. > > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > > >aspect of the IGF. > > >Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Cc: Parminder > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / ) > > (00508305) > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC») > > (00508306) > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 18 13:59:25 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:59:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Suresh, Parminder, I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from both sides. We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/admin orgs get their own category or not as an open question. The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the coalescence of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have happen with CS objectives in mind. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>> It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular group of people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't like the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies .. and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post thread been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going to fall flat? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that if > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This > is > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the leverage...) > rather than think of a reduction. > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall any > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. > We > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > since > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > large a > > number. > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > specific > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS is > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > number > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > MAG > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > the > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For this > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone > by > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > this > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no confusion > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Feb 18 14:09:14 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:09:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9A3ADF-335A-41C6-8A2D-617419EECBCE@ras.eu.org> Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:59, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to > lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. That's not the point. The point is that they're not a stakeholder, because they're of a different nature. As such, some (and sometimes) serve CS interests, others serve business interests or (some) governments interest. > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/ > admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. You rather mean a closed question? Because not addressing this issue means that we agree with the statu quo. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 14:19:34 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:19:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d001c87263$323d8340$96b889c0$@net> I am prepared to go along with Lee's wording here. The disagreement seems to be whether or not these groups are CS. Instead - if you could point to specific CS categories that are underrepresented, and put forward nominees for these, that might get more traction than an arbitrary call to change the MAG size or allocate quotas. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 AM > To: suresh at hserus.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br; > Milton Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the > tech/admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS > representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the coalescence > of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have happen > with CS objectives in mind. > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>> > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular > group of > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't > like > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies > .. > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level > of > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post > thread > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's > going > to > fall flat? > > srs > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > if > > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This > > is > > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > leverage...) > > rather than think of a reduction. > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > any > > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. > > We > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > since > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > large a > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > specific > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > is > > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > number > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number > for > > MAG > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > > the > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > this > > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of > the > > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can > be > > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone > > by > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > > this > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > confusion > > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 14:27:01 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:27:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] US CS & the JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B9DC05.7030207@cavebear.com> William Drake wrote: > ... They oppose setting ICANN free on the grounds > Other comments by people here, e.g. Karl, George, opposing termination. Just a quick reprise - I don't really care whether ICANN is released from the JPA or not. What I really care about is that ICANN is made accountable to the community of internet users. The NTIA oversight, which is really the only way internet users have a leash over ICANN, is largely vacuous and political - but it exists. The reason that I don't want the JPA reins dropped is that I don't see a viable, concrete alternative that won't itself fall prey to the same problems as the current mode of oversight. I kinda like to know where the next step will be before leaving the security of the current place. I'm not fond of "just in time" or "it will be there when I need it" theories when I'm jumping from rock to rock across a fast moving stream. Had we a more well established matrix of accountable governance into which ICANN could be plugged after being unplugged from the JPA then fine. --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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 18 14:37:07 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:37:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Meryem, I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have to at least claim they're serving general and not particular interests. Noone's proposing individual private firms and trade associations as deserving special treatment by IGF right. So if that's all they are then they don't deserve a seat at the global table. I'm not suggesting we agree with the status quo, I'm saying we raise the issue of the international tech community/admin orgs and say a special category is needed. So they don't count against the CS quota but hopefully are often on the same side. You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. I don't imagine we will get consensus on this formulation before the consultation, and therefore agree with you it's best to take numbers out as much as feasible. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 02/18/08 2:09 PM >>> Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:59, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to > lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. That's not the point. The point is that they're not a stakeholder, because they're of a different nature. As such, some (and sometimes) serve CS interests, others serve business interests or (some) governments interest. > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/ > admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. You rather mean a closed question? Because not addressing this issue means that we agree with the statu quo. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 14:54:37 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:54:37 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <12bd01c87268$206f7600$8b00a8c0@IAN> I think Meryem's proposed wording is as close as we are going to get, i.e. The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation should be corrected. (I do have problems with the last sentence but am prepared to wear it - it's not that they are over-represented so much but that they are replacing CS representation that concerns me) Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: 19 February 2008 06:37 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Meryem, I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have to at least claim they're serving general and not particular interests. Noone's proposing individual private firms and trade associations as deserving special treatment by IGF right. So if that's all they are then they don't deserve a seat at the global table. I'm not suggesting we agree with the status quo, I'm saying we raise the issue of the international tech community/admin orgs and say a special category is needed. So they don't count against the CS quota but hopefully are often on the same side. You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. I don't imagine we will get consensus on this formulation before the consultation, and therefore agree with you it's best to take numbers out as much as feasible. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 02/18/08 2:09 PM >>> Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:59, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to > lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. That's not the point. The point is that they're not a stakeholder, because they're of a different nature. As such, some (and sometimes) serve CS interests, others serve business interests or (some) governments interest. > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/ > admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. You rather mean a closed question? Because not addressing this issue means that we agree with the statu quo. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 14:58:51 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Meryem, On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the MAG. > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > envisaged process of rotation of members. I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, governments, and business will continue to say technical community---it's the category being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the grounds for the definitional boundaries. When you say they are not stakeholders but rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually work for said entities, like in secretariats? Paid employment is the determining factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect to the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? And that anyone else who simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has a pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among government, industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals (luckily some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your names), but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying that Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, whereas Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, irrespective of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? And also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated by one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their "seat allocations"? If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how might this affect mAG composition? Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying. 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 15:05:18 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:05:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <12bd01c87268$206f7600$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <12bd01c87268$206f7600$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <00de01c87269$956d9b20$c048d160$@net> Which is why I suggested additional representation for specific CS people / constituencies that are under-represented on MAG. You wont find people amenable to lowering their stake or participation in MAG Suresh > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > International organizations having an important role in the development > of > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over- > representation > should be corrected. > > (I do have problems with the last sentence but am prepared to wear it - > it's > not that they are over-represented so much but that they are replacing > CS > representation that concerns me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 18 15:08:33 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:08:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00df01c8726a$0a1d2080$1e576180$@net> Wonderful question, and it is one that I've been wondering about too. That's just not going to happen, and Parminder's work risks being entirely wasted if it sticks on this point. Limiting MAG size and trying to impose quotas or even claim quotas is counter productive Trying to ignore the technical community and group them / split them like this is entirely naïve and impractical, as Bill Drake's email below shows, patently. Calling for increased representation of CS - which is the goal here - and putting forward suitable nominees for this - will get a lot more traction. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:59 AM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Parminder, Meryem, > > On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > open > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we > agree > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the > MAG. > > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > governments, > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the > category > being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the > grounds for > the definitional boundaries. When you say they are not stakeholders > but > rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually > work > for said entities, like in secretariats? Paid employment is the > determining > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect > to > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? And that anyone else > who > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has > a > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among > government, > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > (luckily > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your > names), > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying > that > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, > whereas > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > irrespective > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? > And > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated > by > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their > "seat > allocations"? If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how > might > this affect mAG composition? > > Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying. > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 18 15:23:06 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:23:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <00de01c87269$956d9b20$c048d160$@net> Message-ID: <12f601c8726c$1a6d3c20$8b00a8c0@IAN> > However, their current over- representation should be corrected. On reflection this sentence does not sit well I would rather "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation" -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 19 February 2008 07:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Lee McKnight'; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Which is why I suggested additional representation for specific CS people / constituencies that are under-represented on MAG. You wont find people amenable to lowering their stake or participation in MAG Suresh > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > International organizations having an important role in the development > of > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over- > representation > should be corrected. > > (I do have problems with the last sentence but am prepared to wear it - > it's > not that they are over-represented so much but that they are replacing > CS > representation that concerns me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Feb 18 17:33:39 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:33:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <328879FE-F08B-4895-8C48-BD8ADA327B1D@ras.eu.org> Lee, Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Meryem, > > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular > interests. As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is serving some private interest. They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org. > So they don't count against the CS quota They do, currently > but hopefully are often on the same side. Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. :) or is it :( ?! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Feb 18 17:53:45 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:53:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91D8825B-5B5F-4969-BA57-83CF1A4B2FBF@ras.eu.org> [Disclaimer: This is not intended to be part of the discussion on the IGC statement, as we seem to be entering into a general, though very interesting, discussion on MAG members capacity/status] Bill, The good thing in becoming tired is that, at the end of the process, you put the finger on the very paradox (or is it the original sin?) of the IGF (and, before IGF, WGIG): participants, starting from MAG members, are supposed to be participating in their individual capacity, while at the same time being selected as "representatives" of a given stakeholder. Without any intention to talk about any particular individual, and also apologizing in advance to them, let's simply take the list of current MAG members and see how they are listed with their respective affiliations on the IGF website. For each of them, let's ask ourselves to which stakeholder they're supposed to belong, only by reading their affiliation. And we'll find that the answer in not so obvious for many of them, and not only for the so-called technical community. Meryem Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:58, William Drake a écrit : > Parminder, Meryem, > > On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >> representation >> of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made >> open >> along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s >> multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided >> equally >> among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, >> we agree >> that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in >> the MAG. >> Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the >> envisaged process of rotation of members. > > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > governments, > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the > category > being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the > grounds for > the definitional boundaries. When you say they are not > stakeholders but > rather something else, is the they in question only people who > actually work > for said entities, like in secretariats? Paid employment is the > determining > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with > respect to > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? And that anyone > else who > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even > has a > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among > government, > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > (luckily > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your > names), > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be > saying that > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, > whereas > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > irrespective > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, > etc? And > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be > nominated by > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their > "seat > allocations"? If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, > how might > this affect mAG composition? > > Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying. > > 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 Mon Feb 18 23:55:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:25:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219045627.BF59E678E0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Lee > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. Meryem has addressed some of the issues, but I will add a bit. Meryem argued that it is not about what interests they represent - dev country gov.s often represent 'development' interests better than some North based CS entities, that doesn't make them CS. And the issue is also not of pushing away anyone either. My organization works in field level development activity, we cant ever think of pushing away governments for instance, but we don't include them in CS either. > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. We all know that merely parroting known positions is not of any use. We need to address issues contextually, and with facts, figures and number if possible. That is if we are really interested in any progress to be made through any particular intervention. The present context is of re-examining the MAG structure, composition etc - and we must all focus on this fact - and as I said earlier, it appears rather odd to appeal to the MAG to clarify rules, quotas, membership criteria etc while also saying that we ourselves are hardly have any clarity on these - rather have next to no views. And that we also try not to discuss these things among us. This when in case of Internet org's representation the major overlap/ confusion is vis a vis civil society representation. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:29 AM > To: suresh at hserus.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br; Milton > Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Suresh, Parminder, > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > both sides. > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/admin > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS > representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the coalescence > of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have happen > with CS objectives in mind. > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>> > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular > group of > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't > like > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies > .. > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post > thread > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going > to > fall flat? > > srs > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > if > > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This > > is > > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > leverage...) > > rather than think of a reduction. > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > any > > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. > > We > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > since > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > large a > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > specific > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > is > > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > number > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > > MAG > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > > the > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > this > > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the > > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be > > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone > > by > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > > this > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > confusion > > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 02:16:29 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:46:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. OK let me try to clarify. But since the complexities of these discussions are seen by most, rightly so, in relation to the urgency to get the statement finalized, I must also mention the real issue that holding this up. Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the statement. I myself have a problem with the statement if IGC is to admit that we indeed are not clear if ICANN is CS. That’s a bottom-line issue for many of us here. And this in the context when we are asking for clarification of various terms and rules about MG. > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > governments, > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the category > being used for the OECD summit as well), TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build on. And that’s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage with one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once again, it is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I don’t know why it doesn’t bother you that tech community means all techies whether they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN plus as organizations, and its reps include lawyers and managers. And that this confusion is deliberately used to create the impression of a sovereign community that exercises power but is not responsible to others. I'm wondering about the grounds > for > the definitional boundaries. Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the first draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar to what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views on these definitional issues that you used to argue. When you say they are not stakeholders but > rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually > work > for said entities, like in secretariats? I myself am not very particular about saying they are NOT stakeholders. Meryem insisted, on the grounds that they are ad hoc parties since the issue here is IG, and there will be similar ad hoc parties requiring representation if we were, for instance, speaking about environment, or health. In fact since these Int orgs actually do policy I consider them as another category of gov institutions, and am ready to include them as stakeholders. I don’t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants to stick to normal UN etc stakeholder nomenclature of stakeholder, and I think she has some good reason for it. Paid employment is the > determining > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect to > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? I think first of all it is not so much about individuals. The main problem is about some people here insisting that ICANN as an institution is civil society. I think it is possible to see this as a different problem than of sorting out where X person or Y belongs, due to multiple hats and such issues. So, to repeat, the statement and all ensuing discussion has only addressed the issue of whether ICANN plus institutions themselves are CS, and not gone into sorting out issues about specific individuals. And that anyone else who > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has a > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among government, > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > (luckily > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your names), > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying that > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, whereas > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > irrespective > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? The issue of individuals is at a different level, and not unique to Int orgs. It happens so often with gov's and less often with private sector. In gov.s, CS members, in any democracy, participate in committees upon committees - which are of varying nature. Some advisory, some of more executive functions, some very centrally policy making and /or executive.... every CS person and her networks and connected groups take different stances depending on the situation. But yes there are times when a person clearly excuses herself of CS role and identity, which she may at a later time come back to. As Dan commented in an email yesterday negotiating complexities is a routine matter in social-political arena, and it is not always fruitful to seek simple solutions. So, in the same way as we deal with the CS person's participation in gov issue we can deal with CS persons participation in Int Orgs issue. Basic principles are the same - how centrally involved one is with the power structure of the concerned governance organization (governments or Int org). About the names you mention I do not know of their role enough to comment on their status, and neither is up to me to make the identity distinction in specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely associated with a policy making body. > irrespective > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? Meryem has clarified that views are the not the main thing here. Don’t you know some gov (or private sector) people with progressive views - more than of many CS people. About activities - yes, if one is doing a lot of different activities we have to figure out which one is primary (in connection to the context), but if policy making and/or executive function in a gov body is a major activity, then we have to think about the CS role/ identity of that person. About affiliations - that’s for the concerned group to decide, we can try to do it for IGC. About self-identification - in complex situations this becomes an important parameter - but it has exceptions, for instance a member of a gov body in a repressive country trying to sit in CS bodies invoking self-identification. There can be other kinds of exceptions. And > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated by > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their "seat > allocations"? No, I am fine with they coming in ICANN plus's quota and representing them. Who said anything to the contrary? I think you may be confusing tech community, on one hand, as we describe as a cross-cutting category (as we did in 07 statements, and in the first draft in the present process) where we mean all techies whosoever, and Int tech community (also often called tech community), on the other hand, by which is meant int orgs... a good proof that it is important that this confusion be avoided by using clearly different names for these two very different categories, isn’t it. If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how > might > this affect mAG composition? I am not ready to deal with MAG composition as a statistical issue. I place it within the broader issue of MAG structure, role, legitimacy, representative-ness etc. and this is the issue under consideration, and if it is not, we want it to be. Again, when you say used to argue about tech community on the same lines as the first draft I wonder to what end and purpose you did these arguments. And if we are not ready to examine these issues we will be doing it at our own peril. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:29 AM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Parminder, Meryem, > > On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we > agree > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the > MAG. > > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > governments, > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the category > being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the grounds > for > the definitional boundaries. When you say they are not stakeholders but > rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually > work > for said entities, like in secretariats? Paid employment is the > determining > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect to > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? And that anyone else who > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has a > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among government, > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > (luckily > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your names), > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying that > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, whereas > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > irrespective > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? And > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated by > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their "seat > allocations"? If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how > might > this affect mAG composition? > > Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying. > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 19 02:40:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:10:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <328879FE-F08B-4895-8C48-BD8ADA327B1D@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's formulation. The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation should be corrected. ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." With "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation" (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6 as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. Ian's formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.) (so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the number 6). Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Lee, > > Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : > > > Meryem, > > > > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true > > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have > > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular > > interests. > > As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them > serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That > could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some > governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying > that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is > serving some private interest. > > They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal > repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad > hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if > we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, > then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org. > > > So they don't count against the CS quota > > They do, currently > > > but hopefully are often on the same side. > > Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. > > > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% > > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. > > :) or is it :( ?! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 03:02:23 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:02:23 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <193b01c872cd$c9cc4a10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Just so its clear, my problem with "their current over-representation should be corrected" is many fold. Firstly, it unnecessarily isolates people with whom we must work. Secondly, it suggests that everyone on MAG with a relationship with ICANN, ISOC, or IETF is part of the same group and has the same relationship with CS. I don't think that's true. Some participate here, some do not. Some have legitimate non- profit and NGO associations, some don't. Thirdly, I think some of their representatives are far preferable to the alternative which might be more governmental and business representatives. I don't think it is for us to deny them a level of involvement. Which is why I prefer "their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation". That says it clearly for me, points directly to where the balance needs to be corrected, and doesn't offend or isolate. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 19 February 2008 18:41 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's formulation. The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation should be corrected. ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." With "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation" (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6 as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. Ian's formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.) (so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the number 6). Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Lee, > > Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : > > > Meryem, > > > > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true > > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have > > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular > > interests. > > As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them > serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That > could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some > governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying > that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is > serving some private interest. > > They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal > repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad > hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if > we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, > then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org. > > > So they don't count against the CS quota > > They do, currently > > > but hopefully are often on the same side. > > Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. > > > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% > > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. > > :) or is it :( ?! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 03:09:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:39:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080219081029.C140BE10A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> > And > > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated > by > > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their > "seat > > allocations"? > > No, I am fine with they coming in ICANN plus's quota and representing > them. > Who said anything to the contrary? I think you may be confusing tech > community, on one hand, as we describe as a cross-cutting category (as we > did in 07 statements, and in the first draft in the present process) where > we mean all techies whosoever, and Int tech community (also often called > tech community), on the other hand, by which is meant int orgs... a good > proof that it is important that this confusion be avoided by using clearly > different names for these two very different categories, isn’t it. And if I have not got your point right, and you are merely wondering if who pays should be the main identity defining characteristic, I think who pays is important and can never be lost sight of, but if substantive activity is carried out as a part an specific organization within its overall role and mandate and representing its interests (and not specifically of the paying party) than a person can be said to come from that organization, and be presented accordingly in MAG. In any case this is a decision to be taken by the concerned org if they will put forward the said person as their rep, and thereby counted in their quota. And whether the person is a rep of the pay master, it is the decision of the pay master, and according considered in that category/ quota. As I said these are complex issues and while we can have some overall principles they may still be needed to be sorted out at specific levels. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:46 PM > To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance'; 'Marzouki, Meryem' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. > > OK let me try to clarify. > > But since the complexities of these discussions are seen by most, rightly > so, in relation to the urgency to get the statement finalized, I must also > mention the real issue that holding this up. > > Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting > ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the > statement. I myself have a problem with the statement if IGC is to admit > that we indeed are not clear if ICANN is CS. That’s a bottom-line issue > for > many of us here. And this in the context when we are asking for > clarification of various terms and rules about MG. > > > > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > > governments, > > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the > category > > being used for the OECD summit as well), > > TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build on. > And that’s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage > with > one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once again, > it > is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I don’t > know why it doesn’t bother you that tech community means all techies > whether > they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN > plus > as organizations, and its reps include lawyers and managers. And that this > confusion is deliberately used to create the impression of a sovereign > community that exercises power but is not responsible to others. > > I'm wondering about the grounds > > for > > the definitional boundaries. > > Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the > first > draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with > definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar to > what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views > on > these definitional issues that you used to argue. > > > When you say they are not stakeholders but > > rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually > > work > > for said entities, like in secretariats? > > I myself am not very particular about saying they are NOT stakeholders. > Meryem insisted, on the grounds that they are ad hoc parties since the > issue > here is IG, and there will be similar ad hoc parties requiring > representation if we were, for instance, speaking about environment, or > health. In fact since these Int orgs actually do policy I consider them as > another category of gov institutions, and am ready to include them as > stakeholders. I don’t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a > stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants to > stick to normal UN etc stakeholder nomenclature of stakeholder, and I > think > she has some good reason for it. > > Paid employment is the > > determining > > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect > to > > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? > > I think first of all it is not so much about individuals. The main problem > is about some people here insisting that ICANN as an institution is civil > society. I think it is possible to see this as a different problem than of > sorting out where X person or Y belongs, due to multiple hats and such > issues. So, to repeat, the statement and all ensuing discussion has only > addressed the issue of whether ICANN plus institutions themselves are CS, > and not gone into sorting out issues about specific individuals. > > > And that anyone else who > > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has > a > > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among > government, > > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > > (luckily > > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your > names), > > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying > that > > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, > whereas > > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > > irrespective > > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? > > The issue of individuals is at a different level, and not unique to Int > orgs. It happens so often with gov's and less often with private sector. > In > gov.s, CS members, in any democracy, participate in committees upon > committees - which are of varying nature. Some advisory, some of more > executive functions, some very centrally policy making and /or > executive.... > every CS person and her networks and connected groups take different > stances > depending on the situation. But yes there are times when a person clearly > excuses herself of CS role and identity, which she may at a later time > come > back to. > > As Dan commented in an email yesterday negotiating complexities is a > routine > matter in social-political arena, and it is not always fruitful to seek > simple solutions. > > So, in the same way as we deal with the CS person's participation in gov > issue we can deal with CS persons participation in Int Orgs issue. Basic > principles are the same - how centrally involved one is with the power > structure of the concerned governance organization (governments or Int > org). > About the names you mention I do not know of their role enough to comment > on > their status, and neither is up to me to make the identity distinction in > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely associated > with a policy making body. > > > irrespective > > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? > > Meryem has clarified that views are the not the main thing here. Don’t you > know some gov (or private sector) people with progressive views - more > than > of many CS people. About activities - yes, if one is doing a lot of > different activities we have to figure out which one is primary (in > connection to the context), but if policy making and/or executive function > in a gov body is a major activity, then we have to think about the CS > role/ > identity of that person. About affiliations - that’s for the concerned > group > to decide, we can try to do it for IGC. About self-identification - in > complex situations this becomes an important parameter - but it has > exceptions, for instance a member of a gov body in a repressive country > trying to sit in CS bodies invoking self-identification. There can be > other > kinds of exceptions. > > And > > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated > by > > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their > "seat > > allocations"? > > No, I am fine with they coming in ICANN plus's quota and representing > them. > Who said anything to the contrary? I think you may be confusing tech > community, on one hand, as we describe as a cross-cutting category (as we > did in 07 statements, and in the first draft in the present process) where > we mean all techies whosoever, and Int tech community (also often called > tech community), on the other hand, by which is meant int orgs... a good > proof that it is important that this confusion be avoided by using clearly > different names for these two very different categories, isn’t it. > > If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how > > might > this affect mAG composition? > > I am not ready to deal with MAG composition as a statistical issue. I > place > it within the broader issue of MAG structure, role, legitimacy, > representative-ness etc. and this is the issue under consideration, and if > it is not, we want it to be. Again, when you say used to argue about tech > community on the same lines as the first draft I wonder to what end and > purpose you did these arguments. > > And if we are not ready to examine these issues we will be doing it at our > own peril. > > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:29 AM > > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > Parminder, Meryem, > > > > On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > > representation > > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > open > > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > equally > > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we > > agree > > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the > > MAG. > > > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > > > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > > > I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating. > > Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, > > governments, > > and business will continue to say technical community---it's the > category > > being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the grounds > > for > > the definitional boundaries. When you say they are not stakeholders but > > rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually > > work > > for said entities, like in secretariats? Paid employment is the > > determining > > factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect > to > > the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of > > registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN? And that anyone else who > > simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has > a > > pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among > government, > > industry, and CS? It's a little awkward to talk about individuals > > (luckily > > some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your > names), > > but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying > that > > Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, > whereas > > Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, > > irrespective > > of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc? > And > > also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily > > involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated > by > > one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their > "seat > > allocations"? If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how > > might > > this affect mAG composition? > > > > Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying. > > > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 19 03:15:20 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's >formulation. I'm not sure if I agree or not with all the recent email (sorry, busy day, not read it all...) but one thing: >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special advisers. 7 from 46. Adam >an >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. >We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business >sector. > >. We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating >role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] >International organizations having an important role in the development of >Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue >to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation >should be corrected. > >( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > >And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > >"However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > >With > >"However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation" > >(my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that >they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In >fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6 >as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take >notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. Ian's >formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle >without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.) > >(so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the >number 6). > > >Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG >> >> Lee, >> >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : >> >> > Meryem, >> > >> > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true >> > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have >> > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular >> > interests. >> >> As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them >> serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That >> could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some >> governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying >> that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is >> serving some private interest. >> >> They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal >> repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad >> hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if >> we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, >> then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org. >> >> > So they don't count against the CS quota >> >> They do, currently >> >> > but hopefully are often on the same side. >> >> Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. >> >> > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% >> > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. >> >> :) or is it :( ?! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 03:15:11 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (dogwallah at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:15:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] mag_breakdown (Google Docs) Message-ID: <00c09fa887ce04467e78b216084e4bc6@google.com> I've shared a document with you called "mag_breakdown": http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pb2DEU5QWe37YA3x2AP2CHw&inv=governance at lists.cpsr.org&t=253798293156971314&guest It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above. All, On Feb 19, 2008 1:33 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% > > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. > > :) or is it :( ?! You have asked for numbers and analysis, here they are: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pb2DEU5QWe37YA3x2AP2CHw Basically, I did 3 different counts, one in which folk could be categorised under multiple headings, using only 3 SH categories, and got: CS Gov PS 22 23 8 Now under this method of counting, instead of a MAG of 47, we have 53 categorisations. Messy. So, I removed the possibility that a person could be counted in more than one SH group, AND erred on the side of removing folk from CS side, and putting them in PS or Gov, and the results: CS Gov PS 16 23 7 Now, this data will be unpalatable for many as the first categorisation, so Adding a 4th SH group AND erring on the side of removing ppl from CS (sorry alejandro) and counting them as part of the 4th group, I get: CS Gov PS 4th SH 8 23 6 9 Any way you slice it, the PS comes up short according to this data, Gov'ts are over represented, and CS is holding it's own. If I have configured Googdocs correctly, this document is editable by anyone on the list. Have at it if you will. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- 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 Feb 19 03:41:01 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:11:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219084126.ECED7A6CD4@smtp2.electricembers.net> > 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special > advisers. > > 7 from 46. > > Adam Thanks, Adam. We instinctively know you will correct us in such details, which allow us to indulgence ourselves in not doing our homework. :) In fact I was just now thinking that the numbers of 11 or so of int orgs, 20 plus of gov and around 7 each of CS and PS just did not look right for a total of 40. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > >I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's > >formulation. > > > I'm not sure if I agree or not with all the > recent email (sorry, busy day, not read it > all...) but one thing: > > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, > > > 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special > advisers. > > 7 from 46. > > Adam > > > > >an > >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > >should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > business > >sector. > > > >. We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > >role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > >International organizations having an important role in the development > of > >Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > >to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation > >should be corrected. > > > >( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > > > > >And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > > >"However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > > >With > > > >"However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > >society participation" > > > >(my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that > >they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In > >fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number > 6 > >as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not > take > >notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. > Ian's > >formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle > >without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.) > > > >(so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the > >number 6). > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > >> > >> Lee, > >> > >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : > >> > >> > Meryem, > >> > > >> > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true > >> > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have > >> > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular > >> > interests. > >> > >> As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them > >> serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That > >> could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some > >> governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying > >> that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is > >> serving some private interest. > >> > >> They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal > >> repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad > >> hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if > >> we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, > >> then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc > org. > >> > >> > So they don't count against the CS quota > >> > >> They do, currently > >> > >> > but hopefully are often on the same side. > >> > >> Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. > >> > >> > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% > >> > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. > >> > >> :) or is it :( ?! > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Tue Feb 19 03:47:54 2008 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:47:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Whistle-blower site taken offline Message-ID: <47BA97BA.9080809@iafrica.com> Monday, 18 February 2008, Whistle-blower site taken offline The case was brought by lawyers working for a Swiss bank A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US. Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities. Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed. However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers. The court also ordered that Dynadot should "prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court." Other orders included that the domain name be locked "to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar" to prevent changes being made to the site. Wikileaks claimed that the order was "unconstitutional" and said that the site had been "forcibly censored". Web names The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion. Wikileaks logo The site was founded in 2006 The documents were allegedly posted by Rudolf Elmer, former vice president of the bank's Cayman Island's operation. A spokesperson for Julius Baer said he could not comment on the case because of "pending legal proceedings". The BBC understands that Julius Baer asked for the documents to be removed because they could have an impact on a separate legal case ongoing in Switzerland. The court hearing took place last week and Dynadot blocked access from Friday evening. Wikileaks says it was not represented at the hearing because it was "given only hours notice" via e-mail. A document signed by Judge Jeffery White, who presided over the case, ordered Dynadot to follow six court orders. As well as removing all records of the site form its servers, the hosting and domain name firm was ordered to produce "all prior or previous administrative and account records and data for the wikileaks.org domain name and account". The order also demanded that details of the site's registrant, contacts, payment records and "IP addresses and associated data used by any person...who accessed the account for the domain name" to be handed over. Wikileaks allows users to post documents anonymously. Information bank The site was founded in 2006 by dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and technologists from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. It so far claims to have published more than 1.2 million documents. It provoked controversy when it first appeared on the net with many commentators questioning the motives of the people behind the site. It recently made available a confidential briefing document relating to the collapse of the UK's Northern Rock bank. Lawyers working on behalf of the bank attempted to have the documents removed from the site. They can still be accessed. Dynadot was contacted for this article but have so far not responded to requests for comment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 19 04:31:48 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:31:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080219074117.E2B9AE07E3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <83C61CD2-3CA4-47F3-B52F-345D3C07BE23@ras.eu.org> Le 19 févr. 08 à 08:40, Parminder a écrit : [...] > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > International organizations having an important role in the > development of > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over- > representation > should be corrected. > > ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) I can live with this removal, although mentioning them better identifies the "classic 3 UN stakeholders" vs. "ad hoc orgs", as well as it strengthens the reference to TA's wordings. > And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > With > > "However, their representation should not be at the expense of > broader civil > society participation" I prefer to mention the over-representation, but I'm also comfortable with Ian's formulation. Not really a big deal as for now, since there will be steps in the discussions: 1. tech org stakeholders or not stakeholders THEN 2. their number in MAG. And 1. is of highest importance, not only in the IGF context. This is urgent matter: OECD, as already mentioned, has also introduced this category. Huge lobbying is successful:( If we don't do anything, these orgs will soon have the status of IGOs in *all* fields! Of course, I would prefer: "However, their current over- representation, at the expense of civil society participation, should be corrected.", but I shouldn't be that greedy:) Also, a minor detail in the first bullet point: can we add "only", to make things clearer, just in case:) ==> (taking into account Adam's important correction on figures) . There are only seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 46, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. instead of: . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. Finally, I'm still of the opinion that suggesting numbers for tech orgs would be counter-productive at this step. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 19 04:32:21 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:32:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080219084127.33ECAF0002@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com> References: <20080219084127.33ECAF0002@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: At 2:11 PM +0530 2/19/08, Parminder wrote: > > 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special >> advisers. >> >> 7 from 46. >> >> Adam > > >Thanks, Adam. We instinctively know you will correct us in such details, >which allow us to indulgence ourselves in not doing our homework. :) Oh don't trust me when maths in concerned... I was wrong. Seems there are 45 members! >In fact I was just now thinking that the numbers of 11 or so of int orgs, 20 >plus of gov and around 7 each of CS and PS just did not look right for a >total of 40. And distracted from work by McTim's Google docs, went over the list and believe the current MAG membership breaks down as follows: Akinsanmi, Titilayo = CS Akplogan, Adiel = I* AlShatti, Qusai = CS Arida, Christine = GOV Bayramov, Ayaz = GOV Cavalli, Olga del Carmen = GOV Clarke, Trevor = GOV Daftardar, Abdullah M. = GOV Dardailler, Daniel = I* Diop Diagne, Ndeye Maimouna = GOV Disspain, Chris = I* Echeberria, Raul = I* Faltstrom, Patrik = I* Gadelha, Augusto Cesar Vieira = GOV Gallagher, Michael D. = PS Graham, Bill = GOV Gross, Robin D. = CS Hassan, Ayesha = PS Hellmonds, Peter = PS Hofmann, Jeanette = CS Iriarte, Erick = CS Kafi, Abdullah = PS Karklins, Janis = GOV Katoh, Masanobu = PS Katundu, Michael = GOV Kisonas, Valdas = GOV Khan, Masood = GOV Kovacs, Kalman = GOV Lohento, Gemma Brice (Ken) = CS Magalhaes, Luis = GOV Oliver, Colin = GOV Papadatos, George = GOV Peake, Adam = CS Pisanty, Alejandro = I* Quaynor, Nii = I* Sambrook, Richard = NO IDEA Sha'ban, Charles = PS Shanker, N. Ravi = GOV Shears, Matthew = I* Swinehart, Theresa = I* Tang, Zicai = GOV Taylor, Emily = I* Vasiliev, Vladimir = GOV Yahaya, Issah = GOV Zangl, Peter = GOV I* is the various Internet organizations. I've based this on how I remember people associating themselves with different groups, or because it's obvious. It is the MAG as listed on the IGF website. 45 members. 21 Government, 10 Internet organizations, 7 civil society and 6 private sector. And 1 more is Richard Sambrook (representing the EBU I believe) I'm not know how to categorize him. EBU private sector? McTim, don't agree with the way you've broken the groups down. If you look at how people registered during WSIS you'll generally find the I* org registered as business (ICANN and APNIC I remember). ISOC was civil society (and still is in GAID) as was W3C. I think if you try to split the I* orgs they come out 7 private sector and 3 civil society. Civil Society's under represented, that's the point we should be making. Adam >Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 19 04:48:54 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080219084127.33ECAF0002@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: Le 19 févr. 08 à 10:32, Adam Peake a écrit : > > And distracted from work by McTim's Google docs, went over the list > and believe the current MAG membership breaks down as follows: [List of MAG members and their categories, based on how Adam "remember people associating themselves with different groups, or because it's obvious"] This makes me think that we should also ask in our statement for the *classified* list of MAG members (not sure this works for special advisers) by category on IGF website: which stakeholder, which other category if any. As part of clarification, transparency and accountability to stakeholders and to the general public. > 45 members. 21 Government, 10 Internet organizations, 7 civil > society and 6 private sector. And 1 more is Richard Sambrook > (representing the EBU I believe) I'm not know how to categorize > him. EBU private sector? Ah. EBU is an interesting case. No, it's not private sector per se. It includes radios and TVs, some of them private, others being public radios or TVs. And, EBU membership might change in the future, including more and more IP- and mobile radios and TVs, which opens the way to CS/community radios and TVs. Actually, there might be some community radios already. So, we have a case, here, of an international organization, not belonging to the so-called tech community, not an intergovernmental organization, not gov, not biz, not cs. But indeed an international organization which should be represented, as an ad hoc participant. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Feb 19 05:02:55 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:02:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting > ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited time here. It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere. > TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build on. I think you need a more differentiated view of "them." ICANN is an IO in terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but whatever), but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/CC...it's not entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/collaborations involved in administrative functions that include the development and application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope. > And that¹s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage with It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is complex and has some fairly unique attributes. How best to conceptualize these is an interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I don't think your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry. Hence, insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature and a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say that CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be perceived to amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing differences. > one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once again, it > is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I don¹t > know why it doesn¹t bother you that tech community means all techies whether > they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN plus I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some (well, one) org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues among tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; that holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as essentially sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all cases; and that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on anything are simply not "clueful." I think it's been evident by the reactions elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective learning, and consensus building. > Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the first > draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with > definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar to > what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views on > these definitional issues that you used to argue. I didn't say that I supported the first draft. My position on the definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small number of people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly advantageous. > > stakeholders. I don¹t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a > stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants to Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and operating the Internet? We're going to claim they're less deserving of representation than a small number of activists? To be honest, this seems a bit arrogant and deluded. I'd rather just say CS is underrepresented than get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of representation for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a better balance. > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely associated > with a policy making body. Too closely? So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed it... From your subsequent post: > > I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's > formulation. > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. Yes > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business > sector. No > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > International organizations having an important role in the development of > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation > should be corrected. No > ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > > And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > With > > "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil > society participation" Yes > (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that > they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In > fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6 > as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely six, if I did I misspoke. I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're underrepresented. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 19 05:41:44 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:41:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5096DF06-0CBA-4CB4-A568-F6D2326C14EB@ras.eu.org> Bill, Do I understand correctly that what you're arguing is that, basically, IGC statement on MAG membership should state that "CS is under-represented"? We should better write a standard statement, then, to be used at each IGF consultation meeting. The good thing is that it would be consensual and always true (by any definition of CS on earth and over time). "Tout ça pour ça!", as we say in French.. (something like "much ado about nothing", but not carrying exactly the same level of surprise and disappointment) What an achievement after 5 years of WSIS and 2 years of IGF! Congratulations. Best, Meryem Le 19 févr. 08 à 11:02, William Drake a écrit : > Parminder, > > On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep >> insisting >> ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of >> the > > If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited > time here. > It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere. > >> TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to >> build on. > > I think you need a more differentiated view of "them." ICANN is an > IO in > terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but > whatever), > but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/ > CC...it's not > entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/ > collaborations > involved in administrative functions that include the development and > application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope. > >> And that’s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our >> usage with > > It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by > definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is > complex and > has some fairly unique attributes. How best to conceptualize these > is an > interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I > don't think > your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry. Hence, > insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me > premature and > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply > say that > CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be > perceived to > amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of > actors > with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing > differences. > >> one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once >> again, it >> is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. >> I don’t >> know why it doesn’t bother you that tech community means all >> techies whether >> they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean >> ICANN plus > > I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some > (well, one) > org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues > among > tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; > that > holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as > essentially > sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all > cases; and > that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on > anything > are simply not "clueful." I think it's been evident by the reactions > elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective > learning, and consensus building. > >> Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to >> the first >> draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt >> with >> definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines >> similar to >> what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own >> views on >> these definitional issues that you used to argue. > > I didn't say that I supported the first draft. My position on the > definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy > math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus > statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small > number of > people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly > advantageous. >> >> stakeholders. I don’t think though by very fact of admitted >> someone as a >> stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem >> wants to > > Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and > operating the Internet? We're going to claim they're less > deserving of > representation than a small number of activists? To be honest, > this seems a > bit arrogant and deluded. I'd rather just say CS is > underrepresented than > get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of > representation > for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a > better > balance. > >> specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and >> groups >> will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely >> associated >> with a policy making body. > > Too closely? > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. > NomCom, ALAC, > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I > missed > it... > > From your subsequent post: > >> >> I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's >> formulation. >> >> The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >> representation of >> different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made >> open along >> with due justifications. Full civil society representation is >> necessary to >> ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > Yes > >> . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an >> anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of >> members. >> We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, >> membership >> should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the >> business >> sector. > > No > >> . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a >> facilitating >> role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues >> and] >> International organizations having an important role in the >> development of >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should >> continue >> to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over- >> representation >> should be corrected. > > No > >> ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) >> >> >> And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence >> >> "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." >> >> With >> >> "However, their representation should not be at the expense of >> broader civil >> society participation" > > Yes > >> (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, >> is that >> they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the >> fact. In >> fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific >> number 6 >> as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people >> do not take > > I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely > six, if I > did I misspoke. I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're > underrepresented. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Tue Feb 19 06:25:55 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:25:55 EST Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Dear All -- The EBU is indeed an "interesting case." It is the only representative of media on the MAG. It consists primarily of state broadcasters, with or without statutes of editorial independence. While the EBU is a perfectly legitimate form of media representation, the special relationships of its members with governments makes it hard to say that it should be a voice for independent media.Media have been systematically ignored and underrepresented in this whole process. A tiny group of activists that has named itself to represent the vast and varied world of civil society has been arguing over whether it has 6 or 8 nor 10 representatives. The media component of civil society, which has a vital interest in the future of the new forms of communication, has had 1 representative, at best. Rony Koven World Press Freedom Committee ************** Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598) -------------- 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 Tue Feb 19 06:51:48 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:51:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <1DB3A08E-0757-454D-9F93-82987E111D07@ras.eu.org> References: <20080218181518.8084C6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1DB3A08E-0757-454D-9F93-82987E111D07@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629401@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I like Meryem's amendments and think that they make the points we want to make while avoiding getting into the quote game. Let's go with that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 1:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Parminder, thanks for your patience with us all! > > Let me consider your latest proposal: > > > . The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > > representation > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > > open > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > > equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > > we agree > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in > > the MAG. > > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > > . There are some views that a smaller MAG may be more effective. > > However if we go by the present membership of MAG which is 40, 6 > > should be a good number for representing Internet organizations. > > Out of the remaining 34 seats civil society should be entitled to > > 11 seats. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG > > of 40, an anomaly which should also be corrected in this round of > > rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace > > each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full > > civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for > > this new experiment in global governance. > > What about this: > > . The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is > necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, > an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of > members. > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > business sector. > > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating role > in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > International organizations having an important role in the > development of > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation > should be corrected. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:14, Parminder a écrit : > > > > >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any > >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find > >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this > >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own > >> name during the meeting). > > > > I am removing the part on '40 is a good number'. But pl see my > > email to > > Milton - if we do not any give numbers, and just say appropriate > > number for > > Int orgs and appropriate number for CS, they will say yes, we will > > give you > > appropriate numbers... Nor are we ready to say give us one fourth, > > bec we > > think Int orgs are represented as a special group. > > > > > >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too > >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and > >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you > >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved > >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less > >> seats than other stakeholders. > >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats > >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather > >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal > >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their > >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should > >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true > >> stakeholders:)) > >> I hardly see any other option. > > > > Right. I will remove reference to speaking about stakeholder > > category for > > Int orgs and just say they need to be represented. > > > > > > Something like > > > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > > representation > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > > open > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > > equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > > we agree > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in > > the MAG. > > Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the > > envisaged process of rotation of members. > > > > Instead of (as present) > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > > representation > > of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made > > open > > along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's > > multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided > > equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, > > we agree > > that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a > > separate > > stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation > > however > > should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members. > > > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > >> > >> Hi Parminder and al. > >> > >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit : > >> > >>> Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > >>> number 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good > >>> number for MAG members' struck off. I am unable to specifically > >>> call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable > >>> opposition to this. > >>> > >>> Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > >>> statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > >>> this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part > >>> of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number > >>> that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but > >>> I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that > >>> allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS > >>> numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, > >>> so there can be no confusion about how this number may be > >>> interpreted. > >>> > >> > >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any > >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find > >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this > >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own > >> name during the meeting). > >> We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and > >> keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions > >> among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:) > >> > >> Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be > >> qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be > >> involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a > >> reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs > >> involved in the field, and you're set. > >> > >> another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated > >> every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right? > >> Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case.. > >> > >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too > >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and > >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you > >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved > >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less > >> seats than other stakeholders. > >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats > >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather > >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal > >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their > >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should > >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true > >> stakeholders:)) > >> I hardly see any other option. > >> > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 08:35:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219133554.693FAA6CC3@smtp2.electricembers.net> > > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely > associated > > with a policy making body. > > Too closely? > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed > it... Bill ,why don’t you tell us your views on these boundaries upfront. Are you fine with the ICANN chair and CEO sitting in for CS... and I used the present tense - "in case the person IS too closely associated with..." which excludes people as you say "have played roles in ....". In fact I gave an example of a CS person working on a substantial gov committee and then coming back to CS role/ identity. There must be some limit to the extent of association of a person with these int orgs that will make us not agreeable to making that person a CS nominee. Are you saying that there is no such limit in your mind. Well, I didnt know that. And if there is some limit whatsoever does it make us Sparatacus YL (whatever it is). > > TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build > on. > > I think you need a more differentiated view of "them." ICANN is an IO in > terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but > whatever), > but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/CC...it's not > entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/collaborations > involved in administrative functions that include the development and > application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope. > Yes we need to take a differentiated view, but not a NO view. I admitted many times in the last few days that the new int orgs are unique in many ways (that’s why are for instance less definitive about individuals playing some degree of overlapping roles). And if "international organizations" doesn’t not capture them all (though these regional/ national level orgs can be represented through their global association etc, wherever possible) this is the reason we are using the term internet organizations. > I didn't say that I supported the first draft. My position on the > definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy > math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, I didn’t say you supported the first draft. What you said was, to quote "... while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder’s draft..." So I just asked you to pl clarify what are these positions that you always argued. Because I am really not able to make them out from these posting, and in case nothing seem remotely close to my draft. So will again ask - what are these positions that you say you always argued, which as per the context, I understand have to do with tech community's identity and representation vis a vis fo CS, which you seem to have abandoned since the 'ship has set sail'. > Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and > operating the Internet? We're going to claim they're less deserving of > representation than a small number of activists? To be honest, this seems > a > bit arrogant and deluded. I'd rather just say CS is underrepresented than > get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of representation > for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a better > balance. Interestingly, my first draft never said anything about the over-representation of Int orgs, in fact it spoke of over-representation of governments. To which your response was. "At this point I’m inclined to support Adam’s view", (and you quoted Adam as) > My problem with the technical community isn't > that they are represented, but there are too > many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from > private sector and civil society respectively. > And I think people generally recognize a close > alignment between the private sector and > technical community (it is certainly apparent > inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a > rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech > community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim So, you apparently agreed to mention over-representation and also perhaps a number which would be appropriate representation. I changed my text as per Adam's response and your endorsement of it. Hence, > insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature > and > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say > that > CS is underrepresented on the mAG. As Meryem said just saying CS in under represented and there should be a better balance is, well... And if you think that this discussion, and a possible statement, on the nature and representation and legitimacies and proportions of different groups that should constitute MAG, which is the centerpiece of a new global governance body, when this body's structure is officially being discussed is a 'total distraction', sure, it is up to us to choose our priorities... It also amounts, or may be perceived > to > amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors > with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing > differences. Building bridges does not mean forgetting one own priorities and interests. I don’t think Indian gov will be too amused wit the ITfC's input on MAG chair issue asking for host country to only have a deputy chair, but we think it addresses a bigger issue. Bridges are fine without compromising the interests we represent. And speaking of brides we need also be cognizant what these positions and attitudes of ours do to the bridges that we need to be more interested in building - with the wider CS constituencies. Have you given consideration to that in the context of the matter of the present discussion? I remain very worried on that count. Lastly coming back to the matter of a caucus statement a caucus > statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small number of > people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly > advantageous. I am going to count only those who respond to this discussion, which is going on for a long time now, and not those who for whatever reason choose not to. I understand that you have stated that some otherwise active members (I don’t know whom you are referring to) are not responding to this discussion. I can understand that someone doesn’t agree with something in the statement etc but not to respond to the discussion, what does it mean. Is this discussion itself below the dignity of those who refuse to participate in it. CS activity is based on open dialogues, and at no point I saw this discussion go to the levels that will make it anyway really unpleasant for anyone to participate. So, as I said I have a lot of people giving constructive views, I have counted 2 people who have this ICANN is CS view and are generally not inclined to any references to int org representation. Yes, today Lee came in with the view that we may avoid mentioning anything about int orgs representation, and I am now seeing that you also look inclined to that view. 2 people's dissent was fine, but yes with Lee and your input today it looks difficult for this part of the statement to get into any kind of a shape for consensus. But I figure we will still be trying. Parminder Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:33 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Parminder, > > On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting > > ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the > > If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited time > here. > It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere. > > > TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build > on. > > I think you need a more differentiated view of "them." ICANN is an IO in > terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but > whatever), > but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/CC...it's not > entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/collaborations > involved in administrative functions that include the development and > application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope. > > > And that¹s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage > with > > It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by > definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is complex and > has some fairly unique attributes. How best to conceptualize these is an > interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I don't > think > your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry. Hence, > insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature > and > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say > that > CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be perceived > to > amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors > with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing > differences. > > > one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once > again, it > > is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I > don¹t > > know why it doesn¹t bother you that tech community means all techies > whether > > they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN > plus > > I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some (well, > one) > org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues among > tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; that > holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as essentially > sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all cases; and > that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on > anything > are simply not "clueful." I think it's been evident by the reactions > elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective > learning, and consensus building. > > > Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the > first > > draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with > > definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar > to > > what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views > on > > these definitional issues that you used to argue. > > I didn't say that I supported the first draft. My position on the > definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy > math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus > statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small number of > people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly > advantageous. > > > > stakeholders. I don¹t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a > > stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants > to > > Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and > operating the Internet? We're going to claim they're less deserving of > representation than a small number of activists? To be honest, this seems > a > bit arrogant and deluded. I'd rather just say CS is underrepresented than > get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of representation > for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a better > balance. > > > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely > associated > > with a policy making body. > > Too closely? > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed > it... > > From your subsequent post: > > > > > I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's > > formulation. > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of > > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > Yes > > > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > > anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > > should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > business > > sector. > > No > > > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > > International organizations having an important role in the development > of > > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation > > should be corrected. > > No > > > ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > > > > > And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > > > "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > > > With > > > > "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > > society participation" > > Yes > > > (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is > that > > they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In > > fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number > 6 > > as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not > take > > I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely six, if I > did I misspoke. I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're > underrepresented. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 19 08:40:55 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:10:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219134123.ED3E2E1562@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill > > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > > anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > > should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > business > > sector. > > No Can you pl help me understand your negative response to this. I thought that has been the general stance of civil society throughout. Especially when in the next para we do make special allocation for internet organizations. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:33 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Parminder, > > On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting > > ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the > > If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited time > here. > It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere. > > > TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build > on. > > I think you need a more differentiated view of "them." ICANN is an IO in > terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but > whatever), > but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/CC...it's not > entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/collaborations > involved in administrative functions that include the development and > application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope. > > > And that¹s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage > with > > It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by > definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is complex and > has some fairly unique attributes. How best to conceptualize these is an > interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I don't > think > your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry. Hence, > insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature > and > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say > that > CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be perceived > to > amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors > with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing > differences. > > > one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once > again, it > > is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I > don¹t > > know why it doesn¹t bother you that tech community means all techies > whether > > they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN > plus > > I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some (well, > one) > org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues among > tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; that > holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as essentially > sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all cases; and > that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on > anything > are simply not "clueful." I think it's been evident by the reactions > elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective > learning, and consensus building. > > > Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the > first > > draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with > > definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar > to > > what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views > on > > these definitional issues that you used to argue. > > I didn't say that I supported the first draft. My position on the > definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy > math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus > statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small number of > people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly > advantageous. > > > > stakeholders. I don¹t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a > > stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants > to > > Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and > operating the Internet? We're going to claim they're less deserving of > representation than a small number of activists? To be honest, this seems > a > bit arrogant and deluded. I'd rather just say CS is underrepresented than > get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of representation > for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a better > balance. > > > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely > associated > > with a policy making body. > > Too closely? > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed > it... > > From your subsequent post: > > > > > I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's > > formulation. > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of > > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > Yes > > > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > > anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > > should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > business > > sector. > > No > > > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > facilitating > > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > > International organizations having an important role in the development > of > > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > continue > > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation > > should be corrected. > > No > > > ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > > > > > And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > > > "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > > > With > > > > "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > > society participation" > > Yes > > > (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is > that > > they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In > > fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number > 6 > > as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not > take > > I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely six, if I > did I misspoke. I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're > underrepresented. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 19 08:40:56 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:40:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <200802190456.m1J4uQOk029370@mx4.syr.edu> References: <200802190456.m1J4uQOk029370@mx4.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162940E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> We seem to be refusing to face the fact that debates about representation create an inherent push to expand the size of the MAG. If the game is all about "being at the table" one can always make someone happy by adding an additional representative. But this is a fool's game. The MAG becomes progressively less effective and harder to keep accountable as it expands in size. The purpose of the MAG is not to concoct some absurd quota system that achieves a perfect alignment between the broad internet set of stakeholder groups and MAG members. The purpose is to provide a point of contact between involved stakeholder groups and the Secretariat and to get some critical work done. Perhaps we should be thinking less about representational formulas -- the MAG doesn't really vote anyway, does it -- and more about what the MAG is supposed to do and how its composition affects that > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:56 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; suresh at hserus.net; > ca at rits.org.br; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Lee > > > Suresh, Parminder, > > > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay > > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > > both sides. > > Meryem has addressed some of the issues, but I will add a bit. Meryem > argued > that it is not about what interests they represent - dev country gov.s > often > represent 'development' interests better than some North based CS > entities, > that doesn't make them CS. > > And the issue is also not of pushing away anyone either. My organization > works in field level development activity, we cant ever think of pushing > away governments for instance, but we don't include them in CS either. > > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/admin > > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > We all know that merely parroting known positions is not of any use. We > need > to address issues contextually, and with facts, figures and number if > possible. That is if we are really interested in any progress to be made > through any particular intervention. > > The present context is of re-examining the MAG structure, composition etc > - > and we must all focus on this fact - and as I said earlier, it appears > rather odd to appeal to the MAG to clarify rules, quotas, membership > criteria etc while also saying that we ourselves are hardly have any > clarity > on these - rather have next to no views. And that we also try not to > discuss > these things among us. This when in case of Internet org's representation > the major overlap/ confusion is vis a vis civil society representation. > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:29 AM > > To: suresh at hserus.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br; Milton > > Mueller > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > Suresh, Parminder, > > > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they fall > > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to lay > > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > > both sides. > > > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right? > > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/admin > > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > > > The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS > > representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the coalescence > > of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have happen > > with CS objectives in mind. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>> > > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular > > group of > > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't > > like > > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such bodies > > .. > > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level of > > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post > > thread > > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's going > > to > > fall flat? > > > > srs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that > > if > > > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. This > > > is > > > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > > > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > > leverage...) > > > rather than think of a reduction. > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall > > any > > > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't happen. > > > We > > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > > since > > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > > large a > > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > > specific > > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS > > is > > > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > > number > > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for > > > MAG > > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for reducing > > > the > > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > this > > > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of the > > > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that can be > > > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have gone > > > by > > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case > > > this > > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > > confusion > > > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 08:43:12 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:13:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080219134341.90A32A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> > >> 7 from 46. > >> > >> Adam > > > > > >Thanks, Adam. We instinctively know you will correct us in such details, > >which allow us to indulgence ourselves in not doing our homework. :) > > > Oh don't trust me when maths in concerned... I was wrong. Seems there > are 45 members! It is strange but in our Feb and May 07 contributions we said that "Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction with the very limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members over about forty". I now remember that's where I took the number 5 from. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:02 PM > To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: dogwallah at gmail.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > At 2:11 PM +0530 2/19/08, Parminder wrote: > > > 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special > >> advisers. > >> > >> 7 from 46. > >> > >> Adam > > > > > >Thanks, Adam. We instinctively know you will correct us in such details, > >which allow us to indulgence ourselves in not doing our homework. :) > > > Oh don't trust me when maths in concerned... I was wrong. Seems there > are 45 members! > > > >In fact I was just now thinking that the numbers of 11 or so of int orgs, > 20 > >plus of gov and around 7 each of CS and PS just did not look right for a > >total of 40. > > > And distracted from work by McTim's Google docs, went over the list > and believe the current MAG membership breaks down as follows: > > Akinsanmi, Titilayo = CS > Akplogan, Adiel = I* > AlShatti, Qusai = CS > Arida, Christine = GOV > Bayramov, Ayaz = GOV > Cavalli, Olga del Carmen = GOV > Clarke, Trevor = GOV > Daftardar, Abdullah M. = GOV > Dardailler, Daniel = I* > Diop Diagne, Ndeye Maimouna = GOV > Disspain, Chris = I* > Echeberria, Raul = I* > Faltstrom, Patrik = I* > Gadelha, Augusto Cesar Vieira = GOV > Gallagher, Michael D. = PS > Graham, Bill = GOV > Gross, Robin D. = CS > Hassan, Ayesha = PS > Hellmonds, Peter = PS > Hofmann, Jeanette = CS > Iriarte, Erick = CS > Kafi, Abdullah = PS > Karklins, Janis = GOV > Katoh, Masanobu = PS > Katundu, Michael = GOV > Kisonas, Valdas = GOV > Khan, Masood = GOV > Kovacs, Kalman = GOV > Lohento, Gemma Brice (Ken) = CS > Magalhaes, Luis = GOV > Oliver, Colin = GOV > Papadatos, George = GOV > Peake, Adam = CS > Pisanty, Alejandro = I* > Quaynor, Nii = I* > Sambrook, Richard = NO IDEA > Sha'ban, Charles = PS > Shanker, N. Ravi = GOV > Shears, Matthew = I* > Swinehart, Theresa = I* > Tang, Zicai = GOV > Taylor, Emily = I* > Vasiliev, Vladimir = GOV > Yahaya, Issah = GOV > Zangl, Peter = GOV > > > I* is the various Internet organizations. I've based this on how I > remember people associating themselves with different groups, or > because it's obvious. It is the MAG as listed on the IGF website. > > 45 members. 21 Government, 10 Internet organizations, 7 civil > society and 6 private sector. And 1 more is Richard Sambrook > (representing the EBU I believe) I'm not know how to categorize him. > EBU private sector? > > McTim, don't agree with the way you've broken the groups down. If > you look at how people registered during WSIS you'll generally find > the I* org registered as business (ICANN and APNIC I remember). ISOC > was civil society (and still is in GAID) as was W3C. I think if you > try to split the I* orgs they come out 7 private sector and 3 civil > society. > > Civil Society's under represented, that's the point we should be making. > > Adam > > > >Parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 19 08:49:38 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:49:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say > that CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be > perceived to amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial > range of actors with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather > than fetishizing differences. Agree that there is no need to pick fights, but this whole quota/category approach to the MAG makes it inevitable. The problem is that the Internet administration organizations' insistence that they are CS, or their perception as such by the IGF Secretariat, is partly responsible for reducing the size of the CS element on the MAG. Anyway, this whole "representation" argument is clearly a rathole. Someone can always come up with a new "category of actor" (see what Rony Koven just did, "the media" is yet another one). We should simply ask for a smaller MAG that is evenly divided between CS, Business and government. Anything else is a waste of time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 19 08:49:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:19:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162940E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080219135019.66295678C2@smtp1.electricembers.net> > > We seem to be refusing to face the fact that debates about > representation create an inherent push to expand the size of the MAG. If > the game is all about "being at the table" one can always make someone > happy by adding an additional representative. But this is a fool's game. > The MAG becomes progressively less effective and harder to keep > accountable as it expands in size. > > The purpose of the MAG is not to concoct some absurd quota system that > achieves a perfect alignment between the broad internet set of > stakeholder groups and MAG members. The purpose is to provide a point of > contact between involved stakeholder groups and the Secretariat and to > get some critical work done. Perhaps we should be thinking less about > representational formulas -- the MAG doesn't really vote anyway, does it > -- and more about what the MAG is supposed to do and how its composition > affects that Milton I understand and appreciate your concern. In fact I agree that a much smaller MAG can be more effective. However we are facing a set of practical issues here. And these turf battles are not entirely in vain. CS needs to clarify and maintain its identity in this IG space. As for there being a push for an expanded MAG in these representation debates the problem is that if we do not do it, MAG will in any case expand (or at least remain the same size) with inclusion of those who are powerful and vocal enough. There are already 20 plus govs in there, and more are getting interested. I have put in the view that smaller MAG may be more effective in the draft text.. Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; suresh at hserus.net; > > ca at rits.org.br; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > Lee > > > > > Suresh, Parminder, > > > > > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > > > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > > > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they > fall > > > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > > > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to > lay > > > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > > > both sides. > > > > Meryem has addressed some of the issues, but I will add a bit. Meryem > > argued > > that it is not about what interests they represent - dev country gov.s > > often > > represent 'development' interests better than some North based CS > > entities, > > that doesn't make them CS. > > > > And the issue is also not of pushing away anyone either. My > organization > > works in field level development activity, we cant ever think of > pushing > > away governments for instance, but we don't include them in CS either. > > > > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 > right? > > > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the > tech/admin > > > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > > > We all know that merely parroting known positions is not of any use. > We > > need > > to address issues contextually, and with facts, figures and number if > > possible. That is if we are really interested in any progress to be > made > > through any particular intervention. > > > > The present context is of re-examining the MAG structure, composition > etc > > - > > and we must all focus on this fact - and as I said earlier, it appears > > rather odd to appeal to the MAG to clarify rules, quotas, membership > > criteria etc while also saying that we ourselves are hardly have any > > clarity > > on these - rather have next to no views. And that we also try not to > > discuss > > these things among us. This when in case of Internet org's > representation > > the major overlap/ confusion is vis a vis civil society > representation. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:29 AM > > > To: suresh at hserus.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br; > Milton > > > Mueller > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > Suresh, Parminder, > > > > > > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international > > > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to > > > serve global civil society's interests. Of course when/if they > fall > > > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them > > > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to > lay > > > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from > > > both sides. > > > > > > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 > right? > > > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the > tech/admin > > > orgs get their own category or not as an open question. > > > > > > The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS > > > representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the > coalescence > > > of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have > happen > > > with CS objectives in mind. > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > > School of Information Studies > > > Syracuse University > > > +1-315-443-6891office > > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>> > > > It wont - in fact it will never happen. Given that this particular > > > group of > > > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't > > > like > > > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such > bodies > > > .. > > > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the > level of > > > "governance" the IETF, for example, can exercise. > > > > > > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post > > > thread > > > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's > going > > > to > > > fall flat? > > > > > > srs > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > > > > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added > that > > > if > > > > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side. > This > > > > is > > > > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to > > > > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the > > > leverage...) > > > > rather than think of a reduction. > > > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not > recall > > > any > > > > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't > happen. > > > > We > > > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40, > > > > since > > > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that > > > > large a > > > > > number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in > > > > specific > > > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that > CS > > > is > > > > > underrepresented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the > > > > number > > > > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number > for > > > > MAG > > > > > members' struck off. I am unable to specifically call for > reducing > > > > the > > > > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the > > > > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS. For > > > this > > > > > reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part of > the > > > > > statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number that > can be > > > > > reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I have > gone > > > > by > > > > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to > > > > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any > case > > > > this > > > > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no > > > confusion > > > > > about how this number may be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 08:57:41 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:57:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162941B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed > it... > Bill, this is unfair and unhelpful. The point should be obvious. ICANN and other IOs _already have_ governance authority under the present regime, and IGF is supposed to be relatively independent of them. People who are employees and Board members of those organizations often have a vested interest in protecting them from criticism or change. I have no problem with including a few people from ICANN+ on the MAG in order to have their voice present. But the idea that somehow the MAG will be completely insulated from and ignorant of their perspective unless the deck is stacked with them is not realistic. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 09:03:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:33:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080219140345.24168A6C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Agree that there is no need to pick fights, but this whole > quota/category approach to the MAG makes it inevitable. The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' insistence that they are > CS, or their perception as such by the IGF Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS element on the MAG. So, Bill, going by what Milton says, it is not only a member or two insisting Internet organizations are CS, these bodies themselves, and even more problematically the IGF secretariat itself confounds these two categories. This makes the issue of discussing and sorting this point out more than 'a total distraction from the main point'. And Milton, I am agreeable to asking for a small MAG equally divided among gov, CS and business sector. But I am not sure some others here are. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say > > that CS is underrepresented on the mAG. It also amounts, or may be > > perceived to amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a > substantial > > range of actors with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather > > than fetishizing differences. > > Agree that there is no need to pick fights, but this whole > quota/category approach to the MAG makes it inevitable. The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' insistence that they are > CS, or their perception as such by the IGF Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS element on the MAG. > > Anyway, this whole "representation" argument is clearly a rathole. > Someone can always come up with a new "category of actor" (see what Rony > Koven just did, "the media" is yet another one). We should simply ask > for a smaller MAG that is evenly divided between CS, Business and > government. Anything else is a waste of time. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 19 09:10:30 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080219140345.24168A6C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080219140345.24168A6C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162941F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > And Milton, I am agreeable to asking for a small MAG equally divided among > gov, CS and business sector. But I am not sure some others here are. My view is that a simple statement like that below, will have far more impact than a bunch of complex gyrations that simply invite people to nitpick (one more finer category, two or three more people in this one or that one, etc., etc.). Beyond that, all I can say is that I admire your willingness to take this work on. I've made my concerns known to you, I think we share basic perspectives, so from here on out you have my trust to attempt to develop a statement on behalf of IGC. It's getting late. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 09:12:18 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:12:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080219133554.693FAA6CC3@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080219133554.693FAA6CC3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Feb 19, 2008 4:35 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups > > > will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely > > associated > > > with a policy making body. > > > > Too closely? > > > > So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about > > nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, > > GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed > > it... > > Bill ,why don't you tell us your views on these boundaries upfront. Are you > fine with the ICANN chair and CEO sitting in for CS Adam has just reminded me that the caucus nominated Paul Wilson as a potential MAG member, he also reminded me that APNIC was listed as PS in WSIS, so, going by our previous actions, we are "fine" with selecting the DG (CEO) of an I* organisation as a CS rep on the MAG!! I don't anything about the current ICANN chair, except the few nice things I have read. However, if you had asked a few months ago "Are you fine with the ICANN chair sitting in for CS", I would have said "HELL YES, any organisation or group would be lucky to have the "midwife' of the Internet representing them on any Internet Governance forum." Ian's formualtion seems to be the voice of reason here. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 19 09:12:05 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:12:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <12f601c8726c$1a6d3c20$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <00de01c87269$956d9b20$c048d160$@net> <12f601c8726c$1a6d3c20$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Having come back from ICANN Delhi meeting and subsequent personal trip to Nepal (which was quite interesting in terms of ICT4D..), I could not absorb all the traffic here. BUT, I am comfortable with the Ian's formation: "their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation". thanks, izumi - going to APRICOT Feb 23-25th and will miss Geneva IGF prep meeting. izumi 2008/2/19, Ian Peter : > > > However, their current over- representation should be corrected. > > On reflection this sentence does not sit well > > I would rather "However, their representation should not be at the expense > of broader civil society participation" > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: 19 February 2008 07:05 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Lee McKnight'; > marzouki at ras.eu.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Which is why I suggested additional representation for specific CS people > / > constituencies that are under-represented on MAG. > > You wont find people amenable to lowering their stake or participation in > MAG > > Suresh > > > . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a > > facilitating > > role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] > > International organizations having an important role in the development > > of > > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should > > continue > > to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over- > > representation > > should be corrected. > > > > (I do have problems with the last sentence but am prepared to wear it - > > it's > > not that they are over-represented so much but that they are replacing > > CS > > representation that concerns me) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: > 18/02/2008 > 05:50 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: > 18/02/2008 > 05:50 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- 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 Feb 19 09:39:22 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:39:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47badc84.0b97600a.031a.ffff8842SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, As fun as this is, this will have to be my last time around on this issue, other things pressing and diminishing returns. For you as well P, the time spent on long emails would be better spent polishing a concise draft that people might be able to agree on, methinks. On 2/19/08 2:40 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Can you pl help me understand your negative response to this. I thought that > has been the general stance of civil society throughout. Especially when in > the next para we do make special allocation for internet organizations. I've written multiple messages explaining my thinking, that it's pointless now to be arguing there's not a fourth grouping, particularly when the logic of the argument is a bit fuzzy and there's not much chance it will be accepted. And insisting there are only three but there should be a "special allocation" for the fourth that doesn't exist doesn't change that. On 2/19/08 2:35 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >>> specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups >>> will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely >>> associated with a policy making body. >> >> Too closely? >> >> So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about >> nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, >> GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed >> it... > > Bill ,why don¹t you tell us your views on these boundaries upfront. Are you > fine with the ICANN chair and CEO sitting in for CS... and I used the My question was a logical extension of your comment. Your question is not a logical extension of mine. Why waste our time on rhetorical games? > present tense - "in case the person IS too closely associated with..." which > excludes people as you say "have played roles in ....". In fact I gave an > example of a CS person working on a substantial gov committee and then > coming back to CS role/ identity. So the rule is valid only for future selections but wouldn't have been for past ones. Ok... > There must be some limit to the extent of association of a person with these > int orgs that will make us not agreeable to making that person a CS nominee. > Are you saying that there is no such limit in your mind. Well, I didnt know > that. And if there is some limit whatsoever does it make us Sparatacus YL > (whatever it is). I'm not the one arguing that people from other groupings should be crammed into the CS category in what should be a straightforward caucus statement, so the burden of defining who would be subject to said cramming falls on you, not me. Why do I have to argue your position rather than mine? > Yes we need to take a differentiated view, but not a NO view. I admitted Again, I don't agree this is needed now. > > I didn¹t say you supported the first draft. What you said was, to quote "... > while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder¹s draft..." > So I just asked you to pl clarify what are these positions that you always > argued. Because I am really not able to make them out from these posting, I was initially, in WGIG and here circa 2004, dubious about establishing a fourth category precisely because of the sort of ambiguities we're debating now. But, I said, what's done is done, I can't see MS consensus on disestablishment so this is a waste of time right now. I also said it's an issue that would merit further analysis and dialogue in the future, including in conjunction with TC types. I'm sorry if you feel this isn't clear enough and merits many more hours of email but I disagree. > Interestingly, my first draft never said anything about the > over-representation of Int orgs, in fact it spoke of over-representation of > governments. To which your response was. > > "At this point I¹m inclined to support Adam¹s view", > > (and you quoted Adam as) >> My problem with the technical community isn't >> that they are represented, but there are too >> many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from >> private sector and civil society respectively. >> And I think people generally recognize a close >> alignment between the private sector and >> technical community (it is certainly apparent >> inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a >> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech >> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim > > So, you apparently agreed to mention over-representation and also perhaps a > number which would be appropriate representation. I changed my text as per > Adam's response and your endorsement of it. I didn't read Adam's statement as meaning that we had to give precise numbers, but rather as one of principle, which I agree with and hope the leadership will move toward without us presuming to tell them precisely how many bodies of each type there should be. > Hence, >> insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature >> and >> a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say >> that >> CS is underrepresented on the mAG. > > As Meryem said just saying CS in under represented and there should be a > better balance is, well... Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of ambition. If you prefer, stick with an elaborately rococo text that the caucus cannot agree on in the next three days. > And if you think that this discussion, and a possible statement, on the > nature and representation and legitimacies and proportions of different > groups that should constitute MAG, which is the centerpiece of a new global > governance body, when this body's structure is officially being discussed is > a 'total distraction', sure, it is up to us to choose our priorities... This particular formulation is, yes. > It also amounts, or may be perceived >> to >> amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors >> with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing >> differences. > > Building bridges does not mean forgetting one own priorities and interests. > I don¹t think Indian gov will be too amused wit the ITfC's input on MAG > chair issue asking for host country to only have a deputy chair, but we > think it addresses a bigger issue. Bridges are fine without compromising the > interests we represent. So fine, pick fights as ITfC reflecting your priorities and interests and do a caucus statement that reflects the more diverse opinions here. On 2/19/08 2:57 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about >> nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, > ALAC, >> GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I > missed >> it... > > Bill, this is unfair and unhelpful. The point should be obvious. ICANN > and other IOs _already have_ governance authority under the present > regime, and IGF is supposed to be relatively independent of them. People > who are employees and Board members of those organizations often have a > vested interest in protecting them from criticism or change. I have no > problem with including a few people from ICANN+ on the MAG in order to > have their voice present. But the idea that somehow the MAG will be > completely insulated from and ignorant of their perspective unless the > deck is stacked with them is not realistic. I don't see how it's unfair and unhelpful, it flows directly from what P said re: people who participate (not staff or board members), stakeholders would have to think carefully about nominating people too close to these processes. I'm not advocating stacking the deck in favor of them (?), I'm just saying leave the category thing alone for now. I take it you don't agree, fine. One my long ago points remains: the more elaborate the statement, the more possibilities for disagreement. Right now we have a highly variable geometry of stances across issues. I don't know how they can be reconciled in the time remaining. Basta, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Feb 19 10:22:59 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:22:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> On 19 Feb 2008, at 08:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' insistence that they > are > CS, or their perception as such by the IGF Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS element on the MAG. Hi, Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? Thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Feb 19 11:59:27 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:59:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <47badc84.0b97600a.031a.ffff8842SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20080219165927.GD3884@hserus.net> I agree 100% with bill here. And the opposition to this seems to range from na�vete all the way to the usual politicking. When there seems to be broad enough consensus on this issue OUTSIDE this group - which, like it or not, has a very small element of CS with an overly ICANN focused view of things .. and indeed, where there's limited CS consensus even here given the opposition expressed by others than McTim / I (Ian Peter and Bill Drake for example) - I would suggest, again, that you stop tilting at windmills. Or at least at this particular windmill. We've wasted several hundred emails + several hours of work that, as Bill suggests, could have been spent polishing a concise draft that reads well as a statement from the floor. Remember - those international internet orgs you mention got their stake by participating, and in several cases, by building this. Walking in and laying claim to this as a matter of right? Yes, you do have a stake. When that stake is supposed to be gained by ignoring or marginalizing groups and people with a meaningful stake gained through active participation and building of the systems you're asking to get governance (and even oversight) of? suresh William Drake [19/02/08 15:39 +0100]: >Hi, > >As fun as this is, this will have to be my last time around on this issue, >other things pressing and diminishing returns. For you as well P, the time >spent on long emails would be better spent polishing a concise draft that >people might be able to agree on, methinks. > >On 2/19/08 2:40 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> Can you pl help me understand your negative response to this. I thought that >> has been the general stance of civil society throughout. Especially when in >> the next para we do make special allocation for internet organizations. > >I've written multiple messages explaining my thinking, that it's pointless >now to be arguing there's not a fourth grouping, particularly when the logic >of the argument is a bit fuzzy and there's not much chance it will be >accepted. And insisting there are only three but there should be a "special >allocation" for the fourth that doesn't exist doesn't change that. > >On 2/19/08 2:35 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >>>> specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups >>>> will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely >>>> associated with a policy making body. >>> >>> Too closely? >>> >>> So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about >>> nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC, >>> GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed >>> it... >> >> Bill ,why don?t you tell us your views on these boundaries upfront. Are you >> fine with the ICANN chair and CEO sitting in for CS... and I used the > >My question was a logical extension of your comment. Your question is not a >logical extension of mine. Why waste our time on rhetorical games? > >> present tense - "in case the person IS too closely associated with..." which >> excludes people as you say "have played roles in ....". In fact I gave an >> example of a CS person working on a substantial gov committee and then >> coming back to CS role/ identity. > >So the rule is valid only for future selections but wouldn't have been for >past ones. Ok... > >> There must be some limit to the extent of association of a person with these >> int orgs that will make us not agreeable to making that person a CS nominee. >> Are you saying that there is no such limit in your mind. Well, I didnt know >> that. And if there is some limit whatsoever does it make us Sparatacus YL >> (whatever it is). > >I'm not the one arguing that people from other groupings should be crammed >into the CS category in what should be a straightforward caucus statement, >so the burden of defining who would be subject to said cramming falls on >you, not me. Why do I have to argue your position rather than mine? > >> Yes we need to take a differentiated view, but not a NO view. I admitted > >Again, I don't agree this is needed now. >> >> I didn?t say you supported the first draft. What you said was, to quote "... >> while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder?s draft..." >> So I just asked you to pl clarify what are these positions that you always >> argued. Because I am really not able to make them out from these posting, > >I was initially, in WGIG and here circa 2004, dubious about establishing a >fourth category precisely because of the sort of ambiguities we're debating >now. But, I said, what's done is done, I can't see MS consensus on >disestablishment so this is a waste of time right now. I also said it's an >issue that would merit further analysis and dialogue in the future, >including in conjunction with TC types. I'm sorry if you feel this isn't >clear enough and merits many more hours of email but I disagree. > >> Interestingly, my first draft never said anything about the >> over-representation of Int orgs, in fact it spoke of over-representation of >> governments. To which your response was. >> >> "At this point I?m inclined to support Adam?s view", >> >> (and you quoted Adam as) >>> My problem with the technical community isn't >>> that they are represented, but there are too >>> many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from >>> private sector and civil society respectively. >>> And I think people generally recognize a close >>> alignment between the private sector and >>> technical community (it is certainly apparent >>> inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a >>> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech >>> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim >> >> So, you apparently agreed to mention over-representation and also perhaps a >> number which would be appropriate representation. I changed my text as per >> Adam's response and your endorsement of it. > >I didn't read Adam's statement as meaning that we had to give precise >numbers, but rather as one of principle, which I agree with and hope the >leadership will move toward without us presuming to tell them precisely how >many bodies of each type there should be. > >> Hence, >>> insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature >>> and >>> a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say >>> that >>> CS is underrepresented on the mAG. >> >> As Meryem said just saying CS in under represented and there should be a >> better balance is, well... > >Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of ambition. If you prefer, stick with >an elaborately rococo text that the caucus cannot agree on in the next three >days. > >> And if you think that this discussion, and a possible statement, on the >> nature and representation and legitimacies and proportions of different >> groups that should constitute MAG, which is the centerpiece of a new global >> governance body, when this body's structure is officially being discussed is >> a 'total distraction', sure, it is up to us to choose our priorities... > >This particular formulation is, yes. > >> It also amounts, or may be perceived >>> to >>> amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors >>> with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing >>> differences. >> >> Building bridges does not mean forgetting one own priorities and interests. >> I don?t think Indian gov will be too amused wit the ITfC's input on MAG >> chair issue asking for host country to only have a deputy chair, but we >> think it addresses a bigger issue. Bridges are fine without compromising the >> interests we represent. > >So fine, pick fights as ITfC reflecting your priorities and interests and do >a caucus statement that reflects the more diverse opinions here. > >On 2/19/08 2:57 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >>> So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about >>> nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, >> ALAC, >>> GNSO....? When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I >> missed >>> it... >> >> Bill, this is unfair and unhelpful. The point should be obvious. ICANN >> and other IOs _already have_ governance authority under the present >> regime, and IGF is supposed to be relatively independent of them. People >> who are employees and Board members of those organizations often have a >> vested interest in protecting them from criticism or change. I have no >> problem with including a few people from ICANN+ on the MAG in order to >> have their voice present. But the idea that somehow the MAG will be >> completely insulated from and ignorant of their perspective unless the >> deck is stacked with them is not realistic. > >I don't see how it's unfair and unhelpful, it flows directly from what P >said re: people who participate (not staff or board members), stakeholders >would have to think carefully about nominating people too close to these >processes. I'm not advocating stacking the deck in favor of them (?), I'm >just saying leave the category thing alone for now. I take it you don't >agree, fine. > >One my long ago points remains: the more elaborate the statement, the more >possibilities for disagreement. Right now we have a highly variable >geometry of stances across issues. I don't know how they can be reconciled >in the time remaining. > >Basta, > >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 guru at itforchange.net Tue Feb 19 12:35:26 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:05:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080219173522.5D4CB67940@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Avri, Do you think the IGF secretariat will take offence to this 'allegation' of having perceived 'entities .....such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS'. I am happy to hear that. For it may help to solve a strange riddle that some of us are caught in - whether ICANN plus is CS! ... Some IGC members seem to believe so... If only the IGF secretariat can issue a disclaimer a major problem in the IGC will solved :-) Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:53 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) On 19 Feb 2008, at 08:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' insistence that they > are CS, or their perception as such by the IGF Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS element on the MAG. Hi, Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? Thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Feb 19 14:18:19 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:18:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> Message-ID: <91FC9392-C2B8-4AEE-88E3-22B6601AA70D@psg.com> Hi, I don't think that I went so far as to say, or consider, the Secretariat would take offense, nor do i think I used, or even thought of, the word 'allegation'. In fact I was trying to avoid making any statement at all, but rather was trying to ask a question. I merely asked for a reference regarding the Secretariat's perceptions on this. If someone can point me to such a statement I would be happy to take the question to the Secretariat and see if I can get a reading on it. I can also ask a direct question. But which question would I be asking: a. are organizations such as ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, the RIRs etc considered CS? b. are organizations such as ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, the RIRs etc considered International Organizations? c. were any of the original CS designated members of the Advisory Group also representatives of a Internet community entity? or some other variant? One thought I would contribute on my own, is that often the decision may have been made on the skills and expertise the individual qua individual brought to the AG and not the association or associations a person may have had at the time. Also many people have multiple associations that evolve over time. I would think that a person would be the representative of a entity such as ICANN, ISOC etc.. if, and only if, they were an employee or on the board. But that is just my personal view. I also don't have the clearest memory of the original selection process, but I do remember that many civil society groupings besides the IGC sent in lists of recommendations, and if a name showed on the list of a CS organization, then the person would probably have been considered a CS selection if they were chosen. a. On 19 Feb 2008, at 12:35, Guru wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Do you think the IGF secretariat will take offence to this > 'allegation' of > having perceived 'entities .....such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS'. > I am > happy to hear that. For it may help to solve a strange riddle that > some of > us are caught in - whether ICANN plus is CS! ... Some IGC members > seem to > believe so... If only the IGF secretariat can issue a disclaimer a > major > problem in the IGC will solved :-) > > Regards, > Guru > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:53 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > On 19 Feb 2008, at 08:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' > insistence that they > are CS, or their perception as such by the IGF > Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS > element > on the MAG. > > Hi, > > Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether > they are > IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > Thanks > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Feb 19 17:31:57 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:31:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Hi, Sorry, just boarding a flight. Meryem's formulation or Ian's is close enough. All I've been trying to say is the institutionalization of the IG space is a longer, and slower process, than this proceeding allows time for. So arguing about exactly how many slots who gets is not the right focus. CS is underrepresented, we and others agree, and we want support remedying that anomaly. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 02/19/08 3:15 AM >>> >I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's >formulation. I'm not sure if I agree or not with all the recent email (sorry, busy day, not read it all...) but one thing: >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, 46 members (my count). Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special advisers. 7 from 46. Adam >an >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business >sector. > >. We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating >role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and] >International organizations having an important role in the development of >Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue >to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation >should be corrected. > >( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed) > > >And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > >"However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > >With > >"However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation" > >(my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that >they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In >fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6 >as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take >notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. Ian's >formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle >without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.) > >(so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the >number 6). > > >Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG >> >> Lee, >> >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit : >> >> > Meryem, >> > >> > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true >> > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have >> > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular >> > interests. >> >> As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them >> serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That >> could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some >> governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying >> that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is >> serving some private interest. >> >> They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal >> repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad >> hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if >> we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment, >> then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org. >> >> > So they don't count against the CS quota >> >> They do, currently >> >> > but hopefully are often on the same side. >> >> Again, that's not the point I'm afraid. >> >> > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% >> > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. >> >> :) or is it :( ?! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 21:19:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:49:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes In-Reply-To: <20080216054458.94C0167833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080220021935.0B9F8E2164@smtp3.electricembers.net> We need to finalize some themes for main sessions for Delhi. The following open text was suggested (see email below), in reply to which Guru (email enclosed) and Thomas Lowenhaupt (email enclosed) have suggested themes. We have had no discussion on them, and suggesting the right themes is I think the most important issue. IGF comes only once in a year, and we must suggest themes now if we are ever going to because I suspect these things will be crystallized early this time. Thomas, may I suggest that you make the theme a little broader, which increases its chance of acceptance as a main session theme. We expect a number of workshops connected to the main session and the main theme should be able to support a sufficiently wide range of topics (but yes, with a good overall focus as well). So instead of "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable Global Cities" May be we can say 'Internet Governance for Sustainable communities' or something like that.. the issue of IR's is covered in IG, but allows other aspects of IG also to be taken up, and communities is a broader term which will include more than just urban units... Please also write a concise one para which describes the theme - a relatively broad sweep within a focused subject, and some public policy connections perhaps. Thanks. Bill, will you like to contribute text on 'WSIS principles'... and / or dev agenda. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > Importance: High > > > I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for Rio. Of > them the CIRs theme was accepted. > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > (Starts) > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings > in > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the > IGF. > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries > should address specific public policy issues that are considered most > important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should feed > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the > plenaries > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs > should > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is > the status of it > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > such > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present > seems > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > (ends) > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some > text > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we > may > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss it. > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more specific > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more > specific issues. > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > through the whole process. > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote the > Swiss gov's contribution. > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF > should > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and > free > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the > discussions > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting of > a > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when governments > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too > cautious etc... > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Guru" Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:01:41 +0530 Size: 15781 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Thomas Lowenhaupt" Subject: Sustainable Cities theme for Delhi Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:29:52 +0530 Size: 16457 URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 19 21:33:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:03:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: <20080220021935.0B9F8E2164@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080220023355.6AC1EE2200@smtp3.electricembers.net> I am enclosing my original email, pl see the text of the proposed statement as well as suggested themes. (full email dt 16th Feb below) Proposed statement of substantive themes (Starts) As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the plenaries and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. (3-4 more themes can be added here) (ends) Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some text We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we may need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss it. If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more specific topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more specific issues. We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get through the whole process. Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote the Swiss gov's contribution. " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF should not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and free and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the discussions should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting of a group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when governments are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too cautious etc... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:49 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > Importance: High > > > We need to finalize some themes for main sessions for Delhi. > > The following open text was suggested (see email below), in reply to which > Guru (email enclosed) and Thomas Lowenhaupt (email enclosed) have > suggested > themes. We have had no discussion on them, and suggesting the right themes > is I think the most important issue. IGF comes only once in a year, and we > must suggest themes now if we are ever going to because I suspect these > things will be crystallized early this time. > > Thomas, may I suggest that you make the theme a little broader, which > increases its chance of acceptance as a main session theme. We expect a > number of workshops connected to the main session and the main theme > should > be able to support a sufficiently wide range of topics (but yes, with a > good > overall focus as well). > > So instead of > > "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable > Global Cities" > > May be we can say > > 'Internet Governance for Sustainable communities' or something like that.. > the issue of IR's is covered in IG, but allows other aspects of IG also to > be taken up, and communities is a broader term which will include more > than > just urban units... > > Please also write a concise one para which describes the theme - a > relatively broad sweep within a focused subject, and some public policy > connections perhaps. Thanks. > > Bill, will you like to contribute text on 'WSIS principles'... and / or > dev > agenda. > > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:14 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > Importance: High > > > > > > I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for Rio. Of > > them the CIRs theme was accepted. > > > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > > > (Starts) > > > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the > > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with > CIRs > > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF > meetings > > in > > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in > > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious > > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global > public > > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the > > IGF. > > > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, > > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall > > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries > > should address specific public policy issues that are considered most > > important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops > > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should > feed > > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the > > plenaries > > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs > > should > > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what > is > > the status of it > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > stakeholders > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > > such > > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present > > seems > > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. > > > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > > > (ends) > > > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some > > text > > > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list > > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) > > > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' > > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we > > may > > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss > it. > > > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more > specific > > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more > > specific issues. > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > > get > > through the whole process. > > > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote > the > > Swiss gov's contribution. > > > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF > > should > > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and > > free > > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the > > discussions > > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting > of > > a > > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when > governments > > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too > > cautious etc... > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:14:27 +0530 Size: 31132 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 ronda.netizen at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 22:16:49 2008 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:16:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: <20080220023355.6AC1EE2200@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220021935.0B9F8E2164@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080220023355.6AC1EE2200@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I suggest you try to include a theme on netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues. Somehow this all seems to get left out. The original vision of Licklider was that citizens would participate in determining what was needed for technological development and in pressuring government to respond to their needs. Netizens is the conceptualization that carries this notion forward now that there is an Internet. I gave a talk about this at the side event to the Tunis WSIS. I can give the url if people are interested. with best wishes Ronda On 2/19/08, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > I am enclosing my original email, pl see the text of the proposed statement > as well as suggested themes. > > > > (full email dt 16th Feb below) > > > > > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > > > (Starts) > > > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the > IGF. > > > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries > should address specific public policy issues that are considered most > important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should feed > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the plenaries > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is > the status of it > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. > > > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > > > (ends) > > > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some text > > > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) > > > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' > > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we may > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss it. > > > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more specific > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more > specific issues. > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get > through the whole process. > > > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote the > Swiss gov's contribution. > > > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF should > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and free > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the discussions > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting of a > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when governments > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too > cautious etc... > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > We need to finalize some themes for main sessions for Delhi. > > > > > > The following open text was suggested (see email below), in reply to which > > > Guru (email enclosed) and Thomas Lowenhaupt (email enclosed) have > > > suggested > > > themes. We have had no discussion on them, and suggesting the right themes > > > is I think the most important issue. IGF comes only once in a year, and we > > > must suggest themes now if we are ever going to because I suspect these > > > things will be crystallized early this time. > > > > > > Thomas, may I suggest that you make the theme a little broader, which > > > increases its chance of acceptance as a main session theme. We expect a > > > number of workshops connected to the main session and the main theme > > > should > > > be able to support a sufficiently wide range of topics (but yes, with a > > > good > > > overall focus as well). > > > > > > So instead of > > > > > > "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate Sustainable > > > Global Cities" > > > > > > May be we can say > > > > > > 'Internet Governance for Sustainable communities' or something like that.. > > > the issue of IR's is covered in IG, but allows other aspects of IG also to > > > be taken up, and communities is a broader term which will include more > > > than > > > just urban units... > > > > > > Please also write a concise one para which describes the theme - a > > > relatively broad sweep within a focused subject, and some public policy > > > connections perhaps. Thanks. > > > > > > Bill, will you like to contribute text on 'WSIS principles'... and / or > > > dev > > > agenda. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:14 AM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > > > > I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for Rio. Of > > > > them the CIRs theme was accepted. > > > > > > > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > > > > > > > (Starts) > > > > > > > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the > > > > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with > > > CIRs > > > > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF > > > meetings > > > > in > > > > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in > > > > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious > > > > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global > > > public > > > > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the > > > > IGF. > > > > > > > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, > > > > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall > > > > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries > > > > should address specific public policy issues that are considered most > > > > important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops > > > > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should > > > feed > > > > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the > > > > plenaries > > > > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs > > > > should > > > > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > > > > > > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > > > > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what > > > is > > > > the status of it > > > > > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global > > > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > > > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > > > > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > > > stakeholders > > > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > > > > such > > > > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present > > > > seems > > > > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. > > > > > > > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > > > > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > > > > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some > > > > text > > > > > > > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list > > > > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) > > > > > > > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > > > > > > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' > > > > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we > > > > may > > > > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss > > > it. > > > > > > > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more > > > specific > > > > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more > > > > specific issues. > > > > > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > > > > get > > > > through the whole process. > > > > > > > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote > > > the > > > > Swiss gov's contribution. > > > > > > > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF > > > > should > > > > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and > > > > free > > > > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the > > > > discussions > > > > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > > > > > > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting > > > of > > > > a > > > > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > > > > > > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when > > > governments > > > > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too > > > > cautious etc... > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Feb 19 23:31:07 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:01:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <91FC9392-C2B8-4AEE-88E3-22B6601AA70D@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080220043111.9200967824@smtp1.electricembers.net> Thanks for the ideas Avri. As you suggest, it is useful to recognise that an individual may wear multiple hats at a point in time and trying to understand the 'nature of stakeholder representation' of an individual will require some attention to the facts of the case as well. In this your suggestion that 'identity' of being employees/members of the board of an organization would be an important factor, is quite valid. In any case, it would be useful, even necessary to discuss this as a part of the MAG reconstitution. We are nearly halfway down the initial stipulated life of 5 years of the IGF/MAG and it may not be considered early to have clarity on such basic issues as these. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:48 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) Hi, I don't think that I went so far as to say, or consider, the Secretariat would take offense, nor do i think I used, or even thought of, the word 'allegation'. In fact I was trying to avoid making any statement at all, but rather was trying to ask a question. I merely asked for a reference regarding the Secretariat's perceptions on this. If someone can point me to such a statement I would be happy to take the question to the Secretariat and see if I can get a reading on it. I can also ask a direct question. But which question would I be asking: a. are organizations such as ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, the RIRs etc considered CS? b. are organizations such as ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, the RIRs etc considered International Organizations? c. were any of the original CS designated members of the Advisory Group also representatives of a Internet community entity? or some other variant? One thought I would contribute on my own, is that often the decision may have been made on the skills and expertise the individual qua individual brought to the AG and not the association or associations a person may have had at the time. Also many people have multiple associations that evolve over time. I would think that a person would be the representative of a entity such as ICANN, ISOC etc.. if, and only if, they were an employee or on the board. But that is just my personal view. I also don't have the clearest memory of the original selection process, but I do remember that many civil society groupings besides the IGC sent in lists of recommendations, and if a name showed on the list of a CS organization, then the person would probably have been considered a CS selection if they were chosen. a. On 19 Feb 2008, at 12:35, Guru wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Do you think the IGF secretariat will take offence to this > 'allegation' of having perceived 'entities .....such as ICANN, RIR and > IETF are CS'. > I am > happy to hear that. For it may help to solve a strange riddle that > some of us are caught in - whether ICANN plus is CS! ... Some IGC > members seem to believe so... If only the IGF secretariat can issue a > disclaimer a major problem in the IGC will solved :-) > > Regards, > Guru > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:53 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > On 19 Feb 2008, at 08:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The problem is > that the Internet administration organizations' > insistence that they > are CS, or their perception as such by the IGF > Secretariat, is partly > responsible for reducing the size of the CS > element > on the MAG. > > Hi, > > Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether > they are > IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > Thanks > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 02:27:05 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:57:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080215140829.79F7DE04C4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> I am changing the subject to 'IGF Delhi format'. Two other statements are being considered under the head 'main themes' and 'reconstituting MAG' Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on the issue of Delhi IGF format. I think there is a non-ending debate between those who want to improve IGF's effectiveness in giving public policy directions, and those who want to encourage it as an open space for dialogue. Arguments given by either side are heard by the other as reducing IGFs effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. So, I though it is best to divide IGF's mandate, functions and needed activities in two parts - accepting the important of both, and making them (to attempting to make them) mutually non-threatening. I have used the open town hall meeting as the descriptive term for the open policy dialogue function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai often uses it now a days. and I think it fits well. The other aspect is titled as 'IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet'. Parminder PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give comments (on all three statements) and integrate them into possible final drafts for seeking rough consensus. I had earlier put these points out - both in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 specific points - for this statement, but I understand it is difficult to keep track to all this activity on the list along with our other works. But can you all please make up in the next two days. Thanks. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input for the format for IGF, Delhi With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the global public policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, Rio. The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia, involve the criteria of (1) Sponsor's readiness to structure the workshops as a space of open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and those with different points of views, to participate as panelists rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a particular subject. (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF's broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within Rio, from day one onwards. We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must also be able to report back on their activities in such a main session. (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next part...) Participation at the IGF It has often been noted that participation in the IGF is very lopsided. In order to build the legitimacy of the IGF, it is important to improve the participation of currently excluded groups. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face participation of currently under-represented groups. Thanks. _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Delhi format.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 22752 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Delhi format.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 04:57:31 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:57:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <5A1B9ED8-7993-4309-8D24-80D554C19E02@ras.eu.org> Hi Parminder et al. I support this statement. I do regret that we haven't been collectively able to agree on one of the two options, and that, as a result, the IGC statement looks more like an external analysis than a true stakeholder view. But as you said we cannot achieve more as for now. One suggestion: as it's not quite clear currently, specially when describing the 'town hall' aspect, we should probably add somewhere a general sentence reaffirming that, whatever the option, discussions should be restricted to matter related to global internet governance, and not expand to any "ICT and society" issue. Isn't this the least minimum we can agree on? Thanks for your hard work on this, as well as on other IGC statements. Best, Meryem Le 20 févr. 08 à 08:27, Parminder a écrit : > I am changing the subject to ‘IGF Delhi format’. Two other > statements are being considered under the head ‘main themes’ and > ‘reconstituting MAG’ > > > > Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on the issue of Delhi > IGF format. > > > > I think there is a non-ending debate between those who want to > improve IGF’s effectiveness in giving public policy directions, and > those who want to encourage it as an open space for dialogue. > Arguments given by either side are heard by the other as reducing > IGFs effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. So, I though it > is best to divide IGF’s mandate, functions and needed activities in > two parts – accepting the important of both, and making them (to > attempting to make them) mutually non-threatening. > > > > I have used the open town hall meeting as the descriptive term for > the open policy dialogue function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai > often uses it now a days… and I think it fits well. The other > aspect is titled as ‘IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public > Policy on Internet’. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give comments (on all three > statements) and integrate them into possible final drafts for > seeking rough consensus. I had earlier put these points out – both > in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 specific points - for this > statement, but I understand it is difficult to keep track to all > this activity on the list along with our other works. But can you > all please make up in the next two days. Thanks. > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input for the format for > IGF, Delhi > > With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess > how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make > improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. > > We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to > carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing > an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues > regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, > encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups > who ‘do not often ‘talk’ to each other’. The second set of mandates > and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some > relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global > public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of > ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional > framework in this area. > > The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both > these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being > achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a > town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one’s opinion and > concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed > above – that of some clear contribution to the global public policy > arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the > next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting > character. > > IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting > > To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are > making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as > many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of > the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the > sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, > Rio. > > The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia, > involve the criteria of > > (1) Sponsor’s readiness to structure the workshops as a space of > open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi > stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed > willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and > those with different points of views, to participate as panelists > rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later > criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially > those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic > structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. > And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points > of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is > possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow > range of views on a particular subject. > > (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within > IGF’s broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are > global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific > overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. > > IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet > > > > There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that > the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global > public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA > mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling > these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among > those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions > could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance > at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within > Rio, from day one onwards. > > > > We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific > issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather > than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet > environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and > prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a > couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main > session at Delhi. > > > > The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > > > > (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and > feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited > number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge > proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities > of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but > retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main > sessions. > > > > (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > > > > (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these > sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should > also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, > taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected > workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG > plus some other experts and stakeholders. > > > > Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the > effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the > formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic > coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session > should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must > also be able to report back on their activities in such a main > session. > > > > (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to > come here, or in the next part…..) > > > > Participation at the IGF > > > > It has often been noted that participation in the IGF is very > lopsided. In order to build the legitimacy of the IGF, it is > important to improve the participation of currently excluded > groups. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential > participants from developing and least developed countries. There > is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online > means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of > online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face > participation of currently under-represented groups. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 05:10:36 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:10:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> References: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016294E5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they > are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 05:14:24 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:14:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016294E5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080219071657.6D21267858@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629418@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <108DA125-363D-49BD-9EAF-DC0AC091546F@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016294E5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <027901c873a9$63911960$2ab34c20$@net> And where does this particular subset of CS get off demanding that these organizations marginalize their stake when giving more stake to CS? > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > > Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > > entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they > > are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the > 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? > And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they > are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces > the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 05:44:51 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:44:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016294E5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it does reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current mAG with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who besides CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should be called. Cheers, BD On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> >> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they >> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the > 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? > And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they > are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces > the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 06:34:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:04:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <5A1B9ED8-7993-4309-8D24-80D554C19E02@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080220113428.AD634E2535@smtp3.electricembers.net> Meryem add somewhere a > general sentence reaffirming that, whatever the option, discussions > should be restricted to matter related to global internet governance, > and not expand to any "ICT and society" issue. Isn't this the least > minimum we can agree on? I thought the following point (2) in the town hall part covers that concern. " (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF’s broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. " That’s why I put it there. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF delhi format > Importance: High > > Hi Parminder et al. > > I support this statement. I do regret that we haven't been > collectively able to agree on one of the two options, and that, as a > result, the IGC statement looks more like an external analysis than a > true stakeholder view. > But as you said we cannot achieve more as for now. > One suggestion: as it's not quite clear currently, specially when > describing the 'town hall' aspect, we should probably add somewhere a > general sentence reaffirming that, whatever the option, discussions > should be restricted to matter related to global internet governance, > and not expand to any "ICT and society" issue. Isn't this the least > minimum we can agree on? > Thanks for your hard work on this, as well as on other IGC statements. > Best, > Meryem > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 08:27, Parminder a écrit : > > > I am changing the subject to ‘IGF Delhi format’. Two other > > statements are being considered under the head ‘main themes’ and > > ‘reconstituting MAG’ > > > > > > > > Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on the issue of Delhi > > IGF format. > > > > > > > > I think there is a non-ending debate between those who want to > > improve IGF’s effectiveness in giving public policy directions, and > > those who want to encourage it as an open space for dialogue. > > Arguments given by either side are heard by the other as reducing > > IGFs effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. So, I though it > > is best to divide IGF’s mandate, functions and needed activities in > > two parts – accepting the important of both, and making them (to > > attempting to make them) mutually non-threatening. > > > > > > > > I have used the open town hall meeting as the descriptive term for > > the open policy dialogue function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai > > often uses it now a days and I think it fits well. The other > > aspect is titled as ‘IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public > > Policy on Internet’. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give comments (on all three > > statements) and integrate them into possible final drafts for > > seeking rough consensus. I had earlier put these points out – both > > in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 specific points - for this > > statement, but I understand it is difficult to keep track to all > > this activity on the list along with our other works. But can you > > all please make up in the next two days. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input for the format for > > IGF, Delhi > > > > With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess > > how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make > > improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. > > > > We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to > > carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing > > an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues > > regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, > > encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups > > who ‘do not often ‘talk’ to each other’. The second set of mandates > > and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some > > relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global > > public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of > > ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional > > framework in this area. > > > > The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both > > these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being > > achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a > > town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one’s opinion and > > concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed > > above – that of some clear contribution to the global public policy > > arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the > > next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting > > character. > > > > IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting > > > > To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are > > making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as > > many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of > > the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the > > sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, > > Rio. > > > > The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia, > > involve the criteria of > > > > (1) Sponsor’s readiness to structure the workshops as a space of > > open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi > > stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed > > willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and > > those with different points of views, to participate as panelists > > rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later > > criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially > > those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic > > structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. > > And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points > > of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is > > possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow > > range of views on a particular subject. > > > > (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within > > IGF’s broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are > > global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific > > overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. > > > > IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet > > > > > > > > There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that > > the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global > > public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA > > mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling > > these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among > > those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions > > could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance > > at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within > > Rio, from day one onwards. > > > > > > > > We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific > > issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather > > than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet > > environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and > > prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a > > couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main > > session at Delhi. > > > > > > > > The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > > > > > > > > (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and > > feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited > > number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge > > proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities > > of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but > > retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main > > sessions. > > > > > > > > (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > > > > > > > > (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these > > sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should > > also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, > > taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected > > workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG > > plus some other experts and stakeholders. > > > > > > > > Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the > > effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the > > formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic > > coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session > > should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must > > also be able to report back on their activities in such a main > > session. > > > > > > > > (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to > > come here, or in the next part ..) > > > > > > > > Participation at the IGF > > > > > > > > It has often been noted that participation in the IGF is very > > lopsided. In order to build the legitimacy of the IGF, it is > > important to improve the participation of currently excluded > > groups. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential > > participants from developing and least developed countries. There > > is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online > > means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of > > online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face > > participation of currently under-represented groups. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 06:57:14 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:57:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Agree with the statement, and particularly with Mereym's comment that discussions must be related to "global Internet governance". It's in the statement but should be emphasized (move it up.) I would add that the New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. Essential the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate (main sessions and workshops as the statement suggests.) Stock taking and the way forward could then be used as a mid-term review where we begin considering whether the IGF should continue after 2010, under what conditions (if any etc) (TA para 76). About the multi-stakeholder organization of workshops -- always intended to be a principle not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society seems to have followed the principle better than most, I don't think we need to worry too much. I would delete from "the later criterion..." to the end of the paragraph. I think over emphasizing this might have a negative effect on CS. There was still too much duplication of subjects of workshops in Rio. If there were more time to organize things then all proposing workshops could be asked to work with others proposing similar themes to refine and merge their proposals (perhaps in working groups?) I like to see something like this in the caucus statement, and that an initial call for workshop proposals should be made shortly after the February consultation. About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the IGF try innovative means of discussion rather than referring to speed dialogue specifically. About participation. For what it's worth, more CS participants in Athens and Rio than other stakeholder groups. "lopsided" in the opening sentence reads oddly (to me). Suggest deleting that sentence, and the paragraph could begin with It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual meetings. (and keep the rest.) Thanks, Adam >I am changing the subject to ŒIGF Delhi format¹. >Two other statements are being considered under >the head Œmain themes¹ and Œreconstituting MAG¹ > >Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on >the issue of Delhi IGF format. > >I think there is a non-ending debate between >those who want to improve IGF¹s effectiveness in >giving public policy directions, and those who >want to encourage it as an open space for >dialogue. Arguments given by either side are >heard by the other as reducing IGFs >effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. >So, I though it is best to divide IGF¹s mandate, >functions and needed activities in two parts ­ >accepting the important of both, and making them >(to attempting to make them) mutually >non-threatening. > >I have used the open town hall meeting as the >descriptive term for the open policy dialogue >function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai often >uses it now a daysŠ and I think it fits well. >The other aspect is titled as ŒIGF as Providing >Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet¹. > >Parminder > >PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give >comments (on all three statements) and integrate >them into possible final drafts for seeking >rough consensus. I had earlier put these points >out ­ both in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 >specific points - for this statement, but I >understand it is difficult to keep track to all >this activity on the list along with our other >works. But can you all please make up in the >next two days. Thanks. > >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input for the format for IGF, Delhi >With two years of experience behind us, it is a >good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling >its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements >as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. >We are of the opinion that the functions that >IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two >broad categories: One is of providing an open >space for discussing any and all public policy >issues regarding the Internet for all >stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging >a closer interactions between stakeholder and >groups who Œdo not often Œtalk¹ to each other¹. >The second set of mandates and functions can be >clubbed in the category of providing some >relatively clear directions and possibilities in >the area of global public policy, and for this >purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, >possibilities, interactions etc in the global >institutional framework in this area. >The structure of the IGF meeting should be >adequate to meet both these purposes. The first >purpose listed above is largely being achieved, >and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic >of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and >voice one¹s opinion and concerns. However, the >requirements for the purpose two listed above ­ >that of some clear contribution to the global >public policy arena - may need us to explore >some structural improvements for the next IGF >meeting, without taking away its open town hall >meeting character. >IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting >To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we >mentioned, we think we are making good progress. >We are of the view that we should allow as many >open workshops as possible, subject only to the >limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should >encourage connected events on the sidelines of >the IGF as well, some of which were held  around >IGF, Rio.   >The process of selection of open workshops >should, inter alia, involve the criteria of >(1)   Sponsor¹s readiness to structure the >workshops as a space of open dialogue and not >just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder >criteria should be seen more in terms of the >expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite >different stakeholders, and those with different >points of views, to participate as panelists >rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. >The later criterion leads to the possibility of >some stakeholders, especially those with a >relatively tightly organized and relatively >monolithic structure and policy/ political >approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety >sought should be more in terms of different >points of views, rather than just different >stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a >panel of different stakeholders with a narrow >range of views on a particular subject. >(2)   Workshops themes staying, as closely as >possible, within IGF¹s broad mandate of dealing >with specifically IG issue, that are global, and >have some relation to public policy arena. >Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF >meeting may also be indicated. >IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet > >There is a general impression that more can be >done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate >of providing directions to global public policy >on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its >TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal >spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. >There was a general impression among those who >attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main >sessions could be made more compelling and >productive. We did see attendance at these >sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and >within Rio, from day one onwards. > >We think that the main sessions should be >focused on specific issues concerning the >conduct of Internet governance per se, rather >than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to >the Internet environment generally. These >specific issues should be framed, and prepared >for, well in advance. We are separately >suggesting a couple of such specific issues that >can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. > >The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > >(1)   Having a couple of thematic workshops >connected with, and feeding into, each of the >main sessions. There should be a limited number >of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous >effort to merge proposals for such workshops in >a manner that preserves diversities of >geo-politics, special interests and different >viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to >increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. > >(2)   Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > >(3)   Using Working Groups to intensively >prepare for each of these sessions, and the >connected workshops. These working groups should >also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents >on each theme, taking from the discussions at >the main sessions and the connected workshops. >These working groups could consist of members of >the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. > >Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great >potential to increase the effectiveness of the >IGF. There should be greater clarity on the >formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF >structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the >chosen subject for a main session should be >involved in the preparations for the session. >They must also be able to report back on their >activities in such a main session. > >(Text of speed dialogue or similar process >suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next >partŠ..) > >Participation at the IGF > >It has often been noted that participation in >the IGF is very lopsided. In order to build the >legitimacy of the IGF, it is important to >improve the participation of currently excluded >groups. Adequate financial support should be >provided to potential participants from >developing and least developed countries. There >is also a lot of scope for improving >participation through online means, which should >be fully explored. However this improvement of >online participation cannot fill in for greater >face to face participation of currently >under-represented groups. > >Thanks. > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.odt ( / ) (0050DA21) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0050DA22) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 06:57:46 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:57:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Bill. I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new members of the MAG rotate in. Adam >Milton, > >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it does >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current mAG >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who besides >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should be >called. > >Cheers, > >BD > > >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>> >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >> >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 07:03:52 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:03:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Agree. Per previous, this should be positioned as an overarching principle relevant to all IGF activities and should placed up front rather than buried in relation only to workshops. I'd suggest in the second paragraph, as a lead in to your sentence, "the plenaries [again, should call these main sessions] should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context," which flows from the principle. BD On 2/20/08 12:57 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Agree with the statement, and particularly with > Mereym's comment that discussions must be related > to "global Internet governance". It's in the > statement but should be emphasized (move it up.) > > I would add that the New Delhi IGF marks the > halfway point in the IGF's mandate. Essential the > meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate > (main sessions and workshops as the statement > suggests.) Stock taking and the way forward could > then be used as a mid-term review where we begin > considering whether the IGF should continue after > 2010, under what conditions (if any etc) (TA para > 76). > > About the multi-stakeholder organization of > workshops -- always intended to be a principle > not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society > seems to have followed the principle better than > most, I don't think we need to worry too much. I > would delete from "the later criterion..." to the > end of the paragraph. I think over emphasizing > this might have a negative effect on CS. > > There was still too much duplication of subjects > of workshops in Rio. If there were more time to > organize things then all proposing workshops > could be asked to work with others proposing > similar themes to refine and merge their > proposals (perhaps in working groups?) I like to > see something like this in the caucus statement, > and that an initial call for workshop proposals > should be made shortly after the February > consultation. > > About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the > IGF try innovative means of discussion rather > than referring to speed dialogue specifically. > > About participation. For what it's worth, more > CS participants in Athens and Rio than other > stakeholder groups. "lopsided" in the opening > sentence reads oddly (to me). Suggest deleting > that sentence, and the paragraph could begin with > > It is important to improve the participation of > currently excluded and under represented groups > in both the IGF's public consultations and the > annual meetings. (and keep the rest.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> I am changing the subject to ŒIGF Delhi format¹. >> Two other statements are being considered under >> the head Œmain themes¹ and Œreconstituting MAG¹ >> >> Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on >> the issue of Delhi IGF format. >> >> I think there is a non-ending debate between >> those who want to improve IGF¹s effectiveness in >> giving public policy directions, and those who >> want to encourage it as an open space for >> dialogue. Arguments given by either side are >> heard by the other as reducing IGFs >> effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. >> So, I though it is best to divide IGF¹s mandate, >> functions and needed activities in two parts ­ >> accepting the important of both, and making them >> (to attempting to make them) mutually >> non-threatening. >> >> I have used the open town hall meeting as the >> descriptive term for the open policy dialogue >> function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai often >> uses it now a daysŠ and I think it fits well. >> The other aspect is titled as ŒIGF as Providing >> Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet¹. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give >> comments (on all three statements) and integrate >> them into possible final drafts for seeking >> rough consensus. I had earlier put these points >> out ­ both in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 >> specific points - for this statement, but I >> understand it is difficult to keep track to all >> this activity on the list along with our other >> works. But can you all please make up in the >> next two days. Thanks. >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input for the format for IGF, >> Delhi >> With two years of experience behind us, it is a >> good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling >> its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements >> as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. >> We are of the opinion that the functions that >> IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two >> broad categories: One is of providing an open >> space for discussing any and all public policy >> issues regarding the Internet for all >> stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging >> a closer interactions between stakeholder and >> groups who Œdo not often Œtalk¹ to each other¹. >> The second set of mandates and functions can be >> clubbed in the category of providing some >> relatively clear directions and possibilities in >> the area of global public policy, and for this >> purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, >> possibilities, interactions etc in the global >> institutional framework in this area. >> The structure of the IGF meeting should be >> adequate to meet both these purposes. The first >> purpose listed above is largely being achieved, >> and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic >> of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and >> voice one¹s opinion and concerns. However, the >> requirements for the purpose two listed above ­ >> that of some clear contribution to the global >> public policy arena - may need us to explore >> some structural improvements for the next IGF >> meeting, without taking away its open town hall >> meeting character. >> IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting >> To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we >> mentioned, we think we are making good progress. >> We are of the view that we should allow as many >> open workshops as possible, subject only to the >> limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should >> encourage connected events on the sidelines of >> the IGF as well, some of which were held  around >> IGF, Rio.   >> The process of selection of open workshops >> should, inter alia, involve the criteria of >> (1)   Sponsor¹s readiness to structure the >> workshops as a space of open dialogue and not >> just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder >> criteria should be seen more in terms of the >> expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite >> different stakeholders, and those with different >> points of views, to participate as panelists >> rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. >> The later criterion leads to the possibility of >> some stakeholders, especially those with a >> relatively tightly organized and relatively >> monolithic structure and policy/ political >> approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety >> sought should be more in terms of different >> points of views, rather than just different >> stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a >> panel of different stakeholders with a narrow >> range of views on a particular subject. >> (2)   Workshops themes staying, as closely as >> possible, within IGF¹s broad mandate of dealing >> with specifically IG issue, that are global, and >> have some relation to public policy arena. >> Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF >> meeting may also be indicated. >> IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet >> >> There is a general impression that more can be >> done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate >> of providing directions to global public policy >> on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its >> TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal >> spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. >> There was a general impression among those who >> attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main >> sessions could be made more compelling and >> productive. We did see attendance at these >> sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and >> within Rio, from day one onwards. >> >> We think that the main sessions should be >> focused on specific issues concerning the >> conduct of Internet governance per se, rather >> than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to >> the Internet environment generally. These >> specific issues should be framed, and prepared >> for, well in advance. We are separately >> suggesting a couple of such specific issues that >> can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. >> >> The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by >> >> (1)   Having a couple of thematic workshops >> connected with, and feeding into, each of the >> main sessions. There should be a limited number >> of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous >> effort to merge proposals for such workshops in >> a manner that preserves diversities of >> geo-politics, special interests and different >> viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to >> increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. >> >> (2)   Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. >> >> (3)   Using Working Groups to intensively >> prepare for each of these sessions, and the >> connected workshops. These working groups should >> also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents >> on each theme, taking from the discussions at >> the main sessions and the connected workshops. >> These working groups could consist of members of >> the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. >> >> Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great >> potential to increase the effectiveness of the >> IGF. There should be greater clarity on the >> formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF >> structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the >> chosen subject for a main session should be >> involved in the preparations for the session. >> They must also be able to report back on their >> activities in such a main session. >> >> (Text of speed dialogue or similar process >> suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next >> partŠ..) >> >> Participation at the IGF >> >> It has often been noted that participation in >> the IGF is very lopsided. In order to build the >> legitimacy of the IGF, it is important to >> improve the participation of currently excluded >> groups. Adequate financial support should be >> provided to potential participants from >> developing and least developed countries. There >> is also a lot of scope for improving >> participation through online means, which should >> be fully explored. However this improvement of >> online participation cannot fill in for greater >> face to face participation of currently >> under-represented groups. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.odt ( / ) >> (0050DA21) >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.doc (WDBN/«IC») >> (0050DA22) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 08:25:51 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:25:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080220113428.AD634E2535@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220113428.AD634E2535@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 12:34, Parminder a écrit : > Meryem > > add somewhere a >> general sentence reaffirming that, whatever the option, discussions >> should be restricted to matter related to global internet governance, >> and not expand to any "ICT and society" issue. Isn't this the least >> minimum we can agree on? > > I thought the following point (2) in the town hall part covers that > concern. > > " (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within > IGF’s broad > mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and > have > some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic > emphasis for > each IGF meeting may also be indicated. " You're right. I said this because of the general intro of the statement, with this sentence: "One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders". But that's OK. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 20 08:41:41 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:41:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles Message-ID: Hi, Per Parminder¹s request, I¹ve drafted some language on two possible main session topics. In both cases, I took note of the Swiss statement. One could argue either way the politics of doing that, but ultimately I thought it¹s sensible to clearly make the linkage so the proposals are framed in subsequent discussion as a MS intervention rather than just some CS thing. If OfCom¹s not shy about supporting our proposals, why should we be shy about doing the same? Also, on the WSIS principles piece, I suggest narrowing the focus this time in a way that makes the issues and politics more manageable. Several years of experience raising this with IGF leadership and at ITU and OECD meetings, etc. lead me to believe that the camel¹s nose would be more less unwelcome in the tent if it looks like transparency and inclusion rather than ³everything should be multilateral² or ³let¹s rehash WSIS² etc. Thoughts, suggestions, corrections of my false consciousness and running dog lackey ways, etc? BTW re: one other point raised prior, I would suggest that we not propose a main session on the IGF mandate, but rather hold off for another IGC workshop instead---second in a branded series, the first having gone well and not led the sky to fall etc. I can¹t imagine key players welcoming the possibility of a main session hullabaloo on that. Cheers, Bill A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.² The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss OfCom¹s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss OfCom¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 09:20:01 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:50:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I agree with Bill. > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > members of the MAG rotate in. > > Adam I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and Lee agreed to it. I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get rough consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth stakeholder. (Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something which you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is discussing it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of representation, legitimacies etc. Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it. (starts) The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. . We also agree that International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > I agree with Bill. > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > members of the MAG rotate in. > > Adam > > > > >Milton, > > > >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it > does > >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would > >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current > mAG > >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that > >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our > >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > besides > >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should > be > >called. > > > >Cheers, > > > >BD > > > > > >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >>> > >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they > >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > >> > >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the > >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? > >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they > >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > reduces > >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 09:24:05 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:24:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <031e01c873cc$42f479e0$c8dd6da0$@net> > However, their > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > participation. However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive civil society participation That wording ok? suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:20 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'William Drake' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > I agree with Bill. > > > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > > members of the MAG rotate in. > > > > Adam > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim > and Lee > agreed to it. > > I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that > the > formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get > rough > consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth > stakeholder. > (Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something > which > you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). > > I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it > is > being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is > discussing > it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the > presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels > of > representation, legitimacies etc. > > > Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's > amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it. > > > (starts) > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society > and the > business sector. > > . We also agree that International organizations having an important > role in > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > participation. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > I agree with Bill. > > > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > > members of the MAG rotate in. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Milton, > > > > > >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course > it > > does > > >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It > would > > >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > > >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the > current > > mAG > > >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and > that > > >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across > our > > >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > > besides > > >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they > should > > be > > >called. > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >BD > > > > > > > > >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > >>> > > >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived > that > > >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether > they > > >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > >> > > >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > > >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If > the > > >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they > counted as? > > >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if > they > > >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by > definition > > >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > > reduces > > >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 09:25:37 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:55:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080220142608.32D386782B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill > Milton, > > FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC My problem is that the tc (technical community) term as used here conflicts frontally with its usage in Tunis agenda as well as used in IGC's earlier statements (last year), where this category is referred to as cross-cutting. I don't think it is a small issue that the same term is used with two entirely different meanings in a discussion where we are trying to establish who should be represented in MAG and in which manner, by what rules, quota etc. Why are we just avoiding this issue, when it stares un in the face, I am completely unable to understand. And when this dual use is not entirely innocent and in this regard I quote you in a recent email " I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some (well, one) org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues among tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; that holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as essentially sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all cases; and that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on anything are simply not "clueful." I think it's been evident by the reactions elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective learning, and consensus building" Do you think this dual use of the term tc has nothing to do with the manner in which the propensity you have some issues with gets expressed and legitimized. If you are concerned about this issue, why no views on this dual use of the 'tc' term, especially now when there seems to be an almost consensus (personal view) on the Ian's formulation. Especially also when you tell us that you once had strong views on this issue. Just trying to understand your position... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:15 PM > To: Mueller, Milton; Governance; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > , and of course it > does > reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would > certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current > mAG > with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that > this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our > immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > besides > CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should > be > called. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> > >> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > >> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they > >> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > > > > Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > > careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the > > 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? > > And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they > > are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > > giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces > > the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 09:37:15 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:37:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts Message-ID: A new batch of MAG mailing list extracts available, see and the digest of discussions section. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 09:57:48 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:57:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: All, On Feb 20, 2008 5:20 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > I agree with Bill. > > > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > > members of the MAG rotate in. > > > > Adam > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and Lee > agreed to it. Apologies if there was a misunderstanding, but i only agreed to this part: > . We also agree that International organizations having an important role in > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > participation. > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG. BTW, I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 20 09:58:22 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:58:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 2/20/08 3:20 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> I agree with Bill. >> >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >> members of the MAG rotate in. >> >> Adam > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and Lee > agreed to it. > > I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the > formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get rough > consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth stakeholder. > (Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something which > you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking about bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing undue confusion. For really the last time, I am opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector" with "International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG" as a vague fall back. I've explained why several times. I am not saving all the messages in this thread but unless I'm senile, McTim doesn't support the "there are only three stakeholders plus IOs" thing, nor does Suresh, Adam, or Lee. Please provide empirical evidence that it is only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks. I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was the one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, not about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing. BD On 2/19/08 9:02 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Just so its clear, my problem with "their current over-representation should > be corrected" is many fold. > > Firstly, it unnecessarily isolates people with whom we must work. > > Secondly, it suggests that everyone on MAG with a relationship with ICANN, > ISOC, or IETF is part of the same group and has the same relationship with > CS. I don't think that's true. Some participate here, some do not. Some have > legitimate non- profit and NGO associations, some don't. > > Thirdly, I think some of their representatives are far preferable to the > alternative which might be more governmental and business representatives. I > don't think it is for us to deny them a level of involvement. > > Which is why I prefer "their representation should not be at the expense of > broader civil society participation". That says it clearly for me, points > directly to where the balance needs to be corrected, and doesn't offend or > isolate. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 10:07:17 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:07:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. jeanette Adam Peake wrote: > I agree with Bill. > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new members > of the MAG rotate in. > > Adam > > > >> Milton, >> >> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it >> does >> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the >> current mAG >> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that >> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who >> besides >> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they >> should be >> called. >> >> Cheers, >> >> BD >> >> >> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>> >>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they >>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>> >>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they >>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces >>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 10:39:45 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:39:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <031e01c873cc$42f479e0$c8dd6da0$@net> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <031e01c873cc$42f479e0$c8dd6da0$@net> Message-ID: <0E3A906B-6C4A-4193-B5AC-EEAF2DABC9A0@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 15:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society >> participation. > > However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive civil > society > participation > > That wording ok? No, Suresh. It's not OK. You're supposed to understand English better than I do, but let me explain to you what's wrong with this: Ian's sentence ("However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation") was agreed as a replacement to previous sentence ("However, their current over- representation should be corrected"). Both sentences were proposed at the end of the following paragraph: "We also agree that International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet- related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. ." Even with limited English language skills, anyone would understand that "their" refers to the " International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies", in other words, the so-called "technical community". So we're talking about them in this paragraph, sot talking about CS participation. So why trying to entirely change the sense and the coherence of the whole paragraph, with a replacement proposal that is, on top of all this, nothing but a weaker repetition of the first two paragraphs of the statement? Are we kidding here? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Feb 20 10:42:16 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:42:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Up coming GAID events (March - May 2008) Message-ID: <200802201541.m1KFfBfu000727@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you about the up coming meetings / events organised or co-organised by the secretariat of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development in the up coming months: 25-26 March 2008 UN Meets Web 2.0 - New Media, New Entrepreneurs and New ICT Opportunities in Emerging Markets Organised by GAID. United Nations Headquarters, New York. The event will consist of a series of policy dialogues and panel sessions on the first day, showcasing a variety of perspectives on key issues. The second day will include an Investors Forum. Open to all stakeholder Documents: . Provisional programme . Website 16-18 April 2008 8th Infopoverty World Conference Multi-conference event at the UN Headquarters connected with Milan (Politecnico and the European Parliament Office), Paris (UNESCO), Madagascar (Sambaina Village), and other locations. The Conference, focusing on "Low Cost-Smart technologies to fight poverty and save the planet", aims to advance the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and, in particular, supports programmes for alleviating poverty through information and communication technologies. Organised by OCCAM in partnership with GAID. Open to all stakeholder: Registration Form Documents: . Provisional programme Website: http://www.infopoverty.net/ 23-24 April 2008 Forum on Sustainable Urbanization in the Information Age, organised by GAID. United Nations Headquarters, New York. Open to all stakeholder - Registration Form Documents: . Invitation letter to GAID STrategy Council members . Concept note and wesite . Draft programme 18-20 May 2008 GAID Steering Committee and Strategy Council meetings, and GAID Global Forum on Access & Connectivity & Innovative Funding. Organised in conjunction with World Congress on Information Technology. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I'll shortly forward complementary information from the GAID Secretariat in this regard. A calendar of post-WSIS related event is up dated at: http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. Best regards, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 10:52:52 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:52:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <0E3A906B-6C4A-4193-B5AC-EEAF2DABC9A0@ras.eu.org> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <031e01c873cc$42f479e0$c8dd6da0$@net> <0E3A906B-6C4A-4193-B5AC-EEAF2DABC9A0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <035401c873d8$aa85e150$ff91a3f0$@net> Hit send too soon, very early in the morning in SFO However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive CS participation while at the same time ensuring adequate participation from the technical community. On the other hand, I'm quibbling here. Ian's wording below is much more preferable to previous variants I have seen. I withdraw my objection. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:40 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 15:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > >> However, their > >> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > >> participation. > > > > However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive civil > > society > > participation > > > > That wording ok? > > No, Suresh. It's not OK. You're supposed to understand English better > than I do, but let me explain to you what's wrong with this: > > Ian's sentence ("However, their representation should not be at the > expense of broader civil society participation") was agreed as a > replacement to previous sentence ("However, their current over- > representation should be corrected"). Both sentences were proposed at > the end of the following paragraph: "We also agree that International > organizations having an important role in the development of Internet- > related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to > be represented in the MAG. ." > > Even with limited English language skills, anyone would understand > that "their" refers to the " International organizations having an > important role in the development of Internet-related technical > standards and relevant policies", in other words, the so-called > "technical community". So we're talking about them in this paragraph, > sot talking about CS participation. > > So why trying to entirely change the sense and the coherence of the > whole paragraph, with a replacement proposal that is, on top of all > this, nothing but a weaker repetition of the first two paragraphs of > the statement? Are we kidding here? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 10:53:45 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:53:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> Jeanette, What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector" (with the rest of the paragraph). Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of the MAG? I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or Ian's is close enough."). Meryem Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. > We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that > we won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. > jeanette > > Adam Peake wrote: >> I agree with Bill. >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented >> for the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as >> new members of the MAG rotate in. >> Adam >>> Milton, >>> >>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of >>> course it does >>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It >>> would >>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the >>> current mAG >>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, >>> and that >>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across >>> our >>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning >>> who besides >>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what >>> they should be >>> called. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> BD >>> >>> >>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>> >>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has >>>>> perceived that >>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of >>>>> whether they >>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>> >>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: >>>> If the >>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they >>>> counted as? >>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And >>>> if they >>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS >>>> reduces >>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 10:58:24 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:58:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <035401c873d8$aa85e150$ff91a3f0$@net> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <031e01c873cc$42f479e0$c8dd6da0$@net> <0E3A906B-6C4A-4193-B5AC-EEAF2DABC9A0@ras.eu.org> <035401c873d8$aa85e150$ff91a3f0$@net> Message-ID: <4081CEF5-9CA0-4525-96F8-D63AC006A4F9@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:52, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Hit send too soon, very early in the morning in SFO As someone who needs at least one liter of coffee to open my eyes, I'm full of indulgence:) > On the other hand, I'm quibbling here. Ian's wording below is much > more > preferable to previous variants I have seen. I withdraw my objection. Thanks for this clarification! Best, Meryem > suresh > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:40 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> >> Le 20 févr. 08 à 15:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> >>>> However, their >>>> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>>> society >>>> participation. >>> >>> However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive civil >>> society >>> participation >>> >>> That wording ok? >> >> No, Suresh. It's not OK. You're supposed to understand English better >> than I do, but let me explain to you what's wrong with this: >> >> Ian's sentence ("However, their representation should not be at the >> expense of broader civil society participation") was agreed as a >> replacement to previous sentence ("However, their current over- >> representation should be corrected"). Both sentences were proposed at >> the end of the following paragraph: "We also agree that International >> organizations having an important role in the development of >> Internet- >> related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to >> be represented in the MAG. ." >> >> Even with limited English language skills, anyone would understand >> that "their" refers to the " International organizations having an >> important role in the development of Internet-related technical >> standards and relevant policies", in other words, the so-called >> "technical community". So we're talking about them in this paragraph, >> sot talking about CS participation. >> >> So why trying to entirely change the sense and the coherence of the >> whole paragraph, with a replacement proposal that is, on top of all >> this, nothing but a weaker repetition of the first two paragraphs of >> the statement? Are we kidding here? >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 11:02:53 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:02:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> Either treat them as part and parcel of CS. Or give them a stake equal to that of CS, and work closely together with them. Don’t treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don’t marginalize their stake and crowd them out of MAG. And remember that the technical community cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be difficult for you to split between those communities. For example - I personally run the antispam operations at a large ISP (70 million ++ users). So - business. I consult for the ITU in developing a botnet mitigation toolkit (business, sort of .. not int.org but working with), I run www.apcauce.org which organizes technical and public policy workshops on spam and internet abuse in the asiapac region (so CS). Neither fish, flesh nor fowl as you can see. And still, if you were to ask me, I would say that I claim a perfect right to be part of CS in this - which is why I am expending time and effort here I could care less about the wording as long as it is acceptable, and not aggressively targeted at marginalizing other stakeholders' valid, legitimate stakes. Hope I make myself clear. > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:54 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Jeanette, > > What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: > "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups > (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." > So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's > saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided > equally among governments, civil society and the business > sector" (with the rest of the paragraph). > > Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other > members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, > and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of > the MAG? > > I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I > know McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't > seen Lee agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's > formulation or Ian's is close enough."). > > Meryem > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > > I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. > > We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that > > we won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. > > jeanette > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > >> I agree with Bill. > >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented > >> for the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as > >> new members of the MAG rotate in. > >> Adam > >>> Milton, > >>> > >>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of > >>> course it does > >>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It > >>> would > >>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > >>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the > >>> current mAG > >>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, > >>> and that > >>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across > >>> our > >>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning > >>> who besides > >>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what > >>> they should be > >>> called. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> BD > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has > >>>>> perceived that > >>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of > >>>>> whether they > >>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > >>>> > >>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > >>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: > >>>> If the > >>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they > >>>> counted as? > >>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And > >>>> if they > >>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by > definition > >>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > >>>> reduces > >>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 20 11:11:59 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:11:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF India Message-ID: As was announced in the IGF official website, they are going to change the date of IGF, to avoid clash with Islamic holidays. And I heard at the ICANN Delhi meeting that the venue may also change from Delhi to Hyderabad where a new international airport has just opened. Unconfirmed, but likely. izumi -------------- 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 Feb 20 11:19:07 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:19:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi for the upgates Aaron On 2/20/08, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > As was announced in the IGF official website, they are going to change the > date of IGF, to avoid clash with Islamic holidays. > > And I heard at the ICANN Delhi meeting that the venue may also change > from Delhi to Hyderabad where a new international airport has just opened. > > Unconfirmed, but likely. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 20 11:20:57 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:20:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing Message-ID: At the Delhi ICANN meeting, I had a lot of conversation on how to deal with the depletion of remaining IPv4 address pool. Many experts in the technical community are now saying that IPv4 based network will not go away in the near future, if not forever, and therefore there is a need to ensure the coexistence and interoperability of the IPv4 and IPv6 networks and their applications. This may pose a serious challenge. As there do not seem sufficient works to examine if all IPv4 based network applications, including firewalls or network management tools, are interoperable with IPv4 based networks. We/they had focused too much on the "allocation" of IPv4 and/or v6, but now the focus should shift to "network operation" - of both v4 and v6. At ICANN ALAC, we have started a policy working group on this issue, and we are going to work on more. It still looks like a very technical issue, but the more I hear from various experst, the wider and deeper problems look like to exist. And this is very much a user issue and public policy matters that we should care about. If you are interested, please see the following page. https://st.icann.org/ipv6-migration/index.cgi?at_large_ipv4_to_ipv6_migration_policy There is a very good presentation prepared by the Japanese government, with their findings from the Working Group. It's abit lengthy, and PDF link, but worth to look at. https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/ipv6-migration/attachments/at_large_ipv4_to_ipv6_migration_policy:20080213104747-1-18800/files/IPV6%20MIC%20Dec%202007.pdf best, izumi -------------- 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 Wed Feb 20 11:24:00 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:54:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Jeanette, In an earlier mail you say, quote "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is pragmatic. The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent and balance them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and exclusion. For example, should environmental effects become an important governance issue, how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder groups from the MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well". Subsequently you mention that the discussion should be stopped since we won't reach consensensus on the above position. So as I understand, while on substance you are for having 3 categories, on process you think that it may be difficult to to achieve consensus due to limited time. My view is that discussions on fundamental issues as these are always on ... Well if we don't achieve consensus then we don't have this in the IGC statement :-) , but these discussions will help us get a better clarity on different positions amongst IGC members, and where people are coming from, what are the principles their positions are based on etc. At the same time I do find it quite strange to keep asserting that now is not the time ... When MAG itself is discussing its composition and changes required, CS is not willing to do the same! In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still have - What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as two very distinct sets at the same time - 1. people who have participated in the creation and running of the Internet - Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and 2. a set of organizations that are part of the current IG. The second definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as 'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the distinction between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can someone enlighten me on this basic issue please.. Regards Guru -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Cc: William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. jeanette Adam Peake wrote: > I agree with Bill. > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > members of the MAG rotate in. > > Adam > > > >> Milton, >> >> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course >> it does reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. >> It would certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's >> a very significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in >> the current mAG with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative >> to others, and that this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying >> that gets across our immediate concern clearly without having to get >> into questioning who besides CS gets to be at the table in precisely >> what numbers and what they should be called. >> >> Cheers, >> >> BD >> >> >> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>> >>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived >>>> that entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of >>>> whether they are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>> >>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if >>> they are considered a separate "technical community" then by >>> definition giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par >>> with CS reduces the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From orobles at nic.mx Wed Feb 20 11:24:20 2008 From: orobles at nic.mx (Oscar A. Robles-Garay) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:24:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080220162420.5D90A546E61@mail.nic.mx> Well, they could have a new international airport soon, but its unlikely they will have enough international non-stops flights and there won't be way to avoid Delhi's airport... Oscar At 10:11 a.m. 20/02/2008, Izumi AIZU wrote: >As was announced in the IGF official website, they are going to change the >date of IGF, to avoid clash with Islamic holidays. > >And I heard at the ICANN Delhi meeting that the venue may also change >from Delhi to Hyderabad where a new international airport has just opened. > >Unconfirmed, but likely. > >izumi > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Feb 20 11:26:36 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:26:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [gaid-discuss] Please save the date: UNDESA-GAID, Annual Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 - 20 May 2008 Message-ID: <200802201625.m1KGPVhL004036@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find below a recent message from the GAID Secretariat regarding the preparations of the next GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and innovative Funding Mechanism, to be organised in conjunction with the next meetings of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee (18-20 May 2008). This will also be held in conjunction with the 2008 World Congress on Information Technology. Preparations are under way on the basis of the outcomes of the September 2007 Steering Committee meeting (summary available here ). Note that the designation by the UN Secretary General of the new membership of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee will be announced shortly and that this new membership after rotation will take office in April 2008. Bets regards, 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 _____ De : discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyé : jeudi, 14. février 2008 22:37 À : discuss at un-gaid.org Objet : [gaid-discuss] Please save the date: UNDESA-GAID, Annual Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 ? 20 May 2008 Dear Colleageues, The Global Alliance for ICT and Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA-GAID) is a global multi-stakeholder partnership programme, with the objective to mobilize the human, financial and technical resources required to bridge major gaps in information and communication technology (ICT), infrastructure, services and applications across the world. The UNDESA-GAID Annual Meeting, to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 18 – 20 May, 2008, aims to bring together partners to help implement a number of ICT projects of significant, catalyzing impact on the development of ICT, infrastructure, services and applications. This year’s Annual Meeting will also focus on issues of access and connectivity, particularly for the Asian and Island States, as well as the innovative funding mechanism for the implementation of ICT, infrastructure, services and applications. Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and innovative Funding Mechanism The UNDESA-GAID Annual Meeting will bring together the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and GAID, in partnership with the Islamic Development Bank, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and experts from civil societies, academia and other regional and international organizations. This collaborative effort seeks to involve various stakeholders active in the region, with the aim of supporting affordable connectivity, applications and services to stimulate economic growth, employment and development throughout the region. By having this meeting, partners will build on the progress of countries, which have established an attractive ICT policy and regulatory environment to accommodate the private sector investment required for sustainable network build-out, capacity roll-out and business innovations. These projects will, in turn, trigger a cycle of further investment and development. The Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and Innovative Funding Mechanism will have a practical, results-oriented format, including interactive, multi-stakeholder panel discussions, partnership announcements, as well as opportunities for participants to showcase their ICT development projects to potential partners and donors. The Forum will also provide an excellent networking platform for leaders from the public, private and financial sectors to meet and forge new partnerships for the future. Participants at the Forum will examine key success factors for ICT investment and development and identify areas for collaboration to: * expand broadband backbone infrastructure and access networks, using innovative business and financing models, such as infrastructure-sharing and demand aggregation among local and regional institutions. This new infrastructure investment includes national and regional interconnectivity initiatives, such as Internet exchange points and rural connectivity projects; * enhance workforce training to support employment and growth in the ICT sector and the overall economy; * stimulate the development of locally-relevant ICT content, applications and services; and * broaden efforts to develop an enabling policy and regulatory environment for investment, including harmonization across regions and sub-regions. New and refurbished PCs There will also be a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, which will address the initiative being developed under the GAID umbrella of providing 500,000 new and refurbished computers for 10,000 schools, catering for 35 million students by the year 2012. At the recent International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada, GAID and CES jointly organized the Technology and Emerging Countries Brainstorming dialogue. We noted that there was tremendous goodwill and willingness to collaborate from all parties present. The supplying parties agreed and were willing to work with the United Nations, through GAID, in a coordinated fashion, to scale up the supply of new and refurbished computers and ensure that the targets are reached. The demand side representatives responded and reiterated their willingness and desire to accept the computers. They agreed to work out the details and to put in place a structure and framework that is consistent in the receiving end at their respective countries. A concept note is currently being prepared and will be presented to the Strategy Council and Steering Committee of the GAID in Kuala Lumpur. It is expected that a pilot project with a committed multi-stakeholder approach will be developed and be rolled out in the four pilot countries before the end of 2008. Private-Public Partnership Recognizing the significance of the private-public partnership in the areas of ICT, we are pleased to inform you that Malaysia, representing the Asian continent, will also host the 2008 World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) during that period in Kuala Lumpur. These two meetings, the United Nations Annual GAID Meeting and the WCIT Meeting will bring the possibility of Member States interacting with more than 70 information technology (IT) industry associations that represent over 90 PER CENT Of the world's IT market, together with civil societies, academia and other experts that will provide the crucial cross-cutting and partnership link between ICT, business, policy and society, and discussing and influencing global challenges, such as healthcare, education, digital divide, privacy and security. The Kuala Lumpur meeting will hear from some of today’s greatest minds on how ICT can be used to enable businesses by enhancing competitiveness, enrich economies by enhancing capacity to create and adopt new technologies, and particularly, to empower societies via access to information and knowledge acquisition. At the Kuala Lumpur meeting, we are inviting all Flagship Partnership Initiatives (FPIs) and Communities Of Expertise (COEs) to showcase and share their activities, plans and best practices with all other FPIs, COEs, High-level Panel of Advisors, Champions Network, Regional Networks, the Strategy Council and the Steering Committee members. You are invited to bring your literatures, brochures and other relevant materials to be distributed during the meetings. The High-level Panel of Advisors and the Regional Networks are also invited to undertake preparatory online discussions and bring their respective and regional perspectives to the discussions in Kuala Lumpur. Please find attached the tentative programme for the Annual GAID Meeting in Kuala Lumpur. We look forward to your personal commitment and active participation at the meetings. Kindly refer to our website, http://www.un-gaid.org, for more information pertaining to the meetings. With my best regards, Sincerely, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PROGRAMME 14 FEB 08.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 61440 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 11:26:27 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:26:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> Message-ID: <4B6DDCDC-C5C4-4321-A9D0-19FD7A2C1B0C@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:02, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Either treat them as part and parcel of CS. Or give them a stake > equal to > that of CS, and work closely together with them. So both options are agreeable to you, and thus the current writing of the IGC statement is agreeable too, as you mentioned in your previous mail. > Don’t treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don’t marginalize > their > stake and crowd them out of MAG. Let's not confuse the exchange of individual arguments and individual positions that we have had till now, with the common outcome, which is the IGC statement. > And remember that the technical community > cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be > difficult for you to split between those communities. But this is precisely what we're saying from the begining!! And the consequence is that they couldn't be part or parcel of just one stakeholder. This is exactly what the statement says. > For example - I personally run the antispam operations at a large > ISP (70 > million ++ users). So - business. I consult for the ITU in > developing a > botnet mitigation toolkit (business, sort of .. not int.org but > working > with), I run www.apcauce.org which organizes technical and public > policy > workshops on spam and internet abuse in the asiapac region (so CS). > Neither fish, flesh nor fowl as you can see. And still, if you > were to ask > me, I would say that I claim a perfect right to be part of CS in > this - > which is why I am expending time and effort here But this is about you, as an individual. As already explained many times on this list, especially by Parminder, there's no problems with individuals. We're discussing representatives of Internet organizations here. > I could care less about the wording as long as it is acceptable, > and not > aggressively targeted at marginalizing other stakeholders' valid, > legitimate > stakes. As you've just clarified that this wording is acceptable to you, it must be clear now that it is not "aggressively targeted at marginalizing other stakeholders' valid, legitimate stakes." > Hope I make myself clear. Yes, very clear. Thanks! Best, Meryem > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:54 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> Jeanette, >> >> What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: >> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups >> (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." >> So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's >> saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided >> equally among governments, civil society and the business >> sector" (with the rest of the paragraph). >> >> Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other >> members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, >> and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of >> the MAG? >> >> I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I >> know McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't >> seen Lee agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's >> formulation or Ian's is close enough."). >> >> Meryem >> >> Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >>> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. >>> We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that >>> we won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Adam Peake wrote: >>>> I agree with Bill. >>>> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented >>>> for the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as >>>> new members of the MAG rotate in. >>>> Adam >>>>> Milton, >>>>> >>>>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of >>>>> course it does >>>>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It >>>>> would >>>>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a >>>>> very >>>>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the >>>>> current mAG >>>>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, >>>>> and that >>>>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across >>>>> our >>>>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning >>>>> who besides >>>>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what >>>>> they should be >>>>> called. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> BD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has >>>>>>> perceived that >>>>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of >>>>>>> whether they >>>>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>>>> >>>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are >>>>>> too >>>>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: >>>>>> If the >>>>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they >>>>>> counted as? >>>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And >>>>>> if they >>>>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by >> definition >>>>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS >>>>>> reduces >>>>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 11:37:02 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:37:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Jeanette, > > What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: "As I > have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, > biz, cs) instead of adding another group." > So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's > saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided equally > among governments, civil society and the business sector" (with the rest > of the paragraph). I said also this: This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. and this: The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal composition. I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead. Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!? jeanette > > Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other > members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, and > thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of the MAG? > > I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know > McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee > agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or > Ian's is close enough."). > > Meryem > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. >> We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we >> won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. >> jeanette >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> I agree with Bill. >>> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >>> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >>> members of the MAG rotate in. >>> Adam >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course >>>> it does >>>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >>>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >>>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the >>>> current mAG >>>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and >>>> that >>>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >>>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who >>>> besides >>>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they >>>> should be >>>> called. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> BD >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >>>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether >>>>>> they >>>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>>> >>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >>>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted >>>>> as? >>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they >>>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >>>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS >>>>> reduces >>>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 11:48:59 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:48:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1258C335-CF72-4F0C-9E9F-AEA2DDD7C3EA@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:11, Izumi AIZU a écrit : > As was announced in the IGF official website, they are going to > change the > date of IGF, to avoid clash with Islamic holidays. Muslim, not islamic:) Although I'm not familiar with specificities (if any?) of muslim practices in India - as there may be some differences in importance given to some celebrations rather than others - I've just checked that the main celebrations is expected (this follows the moon calendar as you know) around Dec. 8 in 2008. Indeed a big problem. In North Africa, this celebration lasts 3 days. On the other hand, this celebration commemorates Abraham's sacrifice, so.. IGF in this period could be somehow relevant:) I'm wondering how this could happen?! Wasn't the Indian gov consulted for the IGF date? Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 11:49:12 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:19:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> Message-ID: <20080220164918.EF19C67845@smtp1.electricembers.net> I think the point has been repeatedly made by Suresh and others that CS should not treat the technical community as enemies. But I did not see any posting which suggested any such thing, even in spirit. On the contrary the position has been clearly that: Technical experts (yourself, Mc Tim et al) can get represented in MAG as members of Government or Business or CS, depending on your affiliations and your views, goals and activities. Internet Governance organizations such as ICANN, RIRs etc should definitely be part of the MAG structure/process, without them discussions on IG will be futile. It has been reiterated by many who are for the draft as it stands at present. The problem that has been raised (again repeatedly) is that the second group cannot be considered part of CS. They can come in under a distinct label but honestly imo, it is quite ridiculous to keep asserting that ICANN is CS. Regards, Guru Btw I don't think any group can be considered as 'enemies' that defeats the very conception of 'multistakeholderism' - nor do we rush to give them CS seats on bodies where CS seeks representation :-) -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Meryem Marzouki' Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) Either treat them as part and parcel of CS. Or give them a stake equal to that of CS, and work closely together with them. Don't treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don't marginalize their stake and crowd them out of MAG. And remember that the technical community cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be difficult for you to split between those communities. For example - I personally run the antispam operations at a large ISP (70 million ++ users). So - business. I consult for the ITU in developing a botnet mitigation toolkit (business, sort of .. not int.org but working with), I run www.apcauce.org which organizes technical and public policy workshops on spam and internet abuse in the asiapac region (so CS). Neither fish, flesh nor fowl as you can see. And still, if you were to ask me, I would say that I claim a perfect right to be part of CS in this - which is why I am expending time and effort here I could care less about the wording as long as it is acceptable, and not aggressively targeted at marginalizing other stakeholders' valid, legitimate stakes. Hope I make myself clear. > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:54 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Jeanette, > > What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: > "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups > (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." > So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's > saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided > equally among governments, civil society and the business sector" > (with the rest of the paragraph). > > Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other > members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, > and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of > the MAG? > > I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know > McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee > agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or > Ian's is close enough."). > > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 20 11:57:01 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:57:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 7:50 PM +0530 2/20/08, Parminder wrote: > > I agree with Bill. >> >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >> members of the MAG rotate in. >> >> Adam > >I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and Lee >agreed to it. There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me. Not to all the statement. I would like to see a full version of the statement rather than a few paragraphs (and do appreciate all your work.) >I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the >formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get rough >consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth stakeholder. >(Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something which >you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). > >I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is >being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is discussing >it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the >presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of >representation, legitimacies etc. > > >Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's >amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it. > > >(starts) >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. I am not sure I understand. What would you want such rules to say? (for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat responding positively to the sentence you suggest above?) instead how about something like: In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group (stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that person is associated with. Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to advise himself. Unless we challenge the notion of it being an advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could do...) >Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. What do you mean by "full"? >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. How about: Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and the >business sector. I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new stakeholder group in the IGF. I have no problem with the technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. >. We also agree that International organizations having an important role in >the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society >participation. > Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... The technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me. Grumpy recalcitrant outlier'ish thanks, Adam > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> I agree with Bill. >> >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >> members of the MAG rotate in. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >Milton, >> > >> >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it >> does >> >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >> >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >> >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current >> mAG >> >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that >> >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >> >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who >> besides >> >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should >> be >> >called. >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> >BD >> > >> > >> >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> >>> >> >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >> >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they >> >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >> >> >> >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >> >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >> >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >> >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they >> >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >> >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS >> reduces >> >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >> > >> > >> >____________________________________________________________ >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 11:57:39 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:57:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: >Jeanette, > >What I can read from your previous post of Feb >12 is this excerpt: "As I have probably said >before, I think we should stick to 3 groups >(govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." >So, could please clarify in which sense you >agree with Bill, who's saying that he's opposed >to "membership should (ideally) divided equally >among governments, civil society and the >business sector" (with the rest of the >paragraph). > >Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion >that ICANN and other members of the so-called >"technical community" are CS organizations, and >thus should be counted as such in terms of >number of members of the MAG? No. In the IGF I think they should continue to be considered as separate stakeholder (or interest) group. But I consider they are currently over represented in the MAG (I also think govt over represented), so there should be a rebalancing to favor civil society in particular as CS is clearly under represented. Adam >I'm also asking the same question to Bill and >Adam. And Suresh. I know McTim is clear on this: >for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee >agreeing on this (in his last email he said >"Meryem's formulation or Ian's is close >enough."). > >Meryem > >Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >>I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. >>We should really stop this discussion as it is >>clear for days that we won't reach consensus >>beyond the statement expressed below. >>jeanette >> >>Adam Peake wrote: >>>I agree with Bill. >>>I think we should simply be arguing CS has >>>been under-represented for the past two years >>>and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >>>members of the MAG rotate in. >>>Adam >>>>Milton, >>>> >>>>FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it does >>>>reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >>>>certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >>>>significant imbalance in stakeholder group >>>>representation in the current mAG >>>>with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that >>>>this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >>>>immediate concern clearly without having to >>>>get into questioning who besides >>>>CS gets to be at the table in precisely what >>>>numbers and what they should be >>>>called. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>> >>>>BD >>>> >>>> >>>>On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that >>>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they >>>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>>> >>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >>>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they >>>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >>>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces >>>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 11:59:41 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:59:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Synthesis paper (and news about IGF 2008 location) Message-ID: I imagine now OK to forward such email. > >Dear colleagues, > >A synthesis paper that reflects the >contributions we received is now available on >our Web site: >http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf > >You will note that we have changed the language >for the announcement of the 2008 meeting in >India. We have received many questions with >regard to the date, as concerns were expressed >regarding the clash of dates with the Islamic >holiday Eid El-Adha. The Indian hosts are >looking for alternatives, to accommodate our >Islamic stakeholders. A solution is in the >pipeline, but needs formal Ministerial approval >before it can be announced. We were assured that >they would be ready to do so shortly. The new >language on our Web site reflects this evolving >situation. > >Best regards >Markus > Good to see the secretariat and hosts responding quickly. We'll hear news in good time, let's continue seeing what can be done for the consultation. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 12:10:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:40:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080220171108.01F15678CF@smtp1.electricembers.net> > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG. > > BTW, I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda. McTim, I quote your email of yesterday "Ian's formulation seems to be the voice of reason here." Which was sent a few hours after Ian's email (enclosed)which replied to my email asking for clear views of Lee and Bill on Meryem's formulation where Ian's amendments to this formulation were also indicated. Ian in his email goes on to explain his amendments (which obviously means he places them within the original Meryem's formulation). So, when you say you agree with Ian's formulation, if your interventions are meant to go into the exercise of constructing a caucus statement (which I take them to be) and not mere expressions of your views as they come to you, I am liable to take your agreement to Ian's amendment as also accepting the larger text that is amended. Don't you think it is logical. I am trying to pull people's contributions together into a possible caucus statement and it helps greatly if contributions are situated with respect to the text on hand. Search 'technical communities' and you will find it (well, this fiction of one monolithic one view tech community). To help you I can quote para 36 of TA " We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet" Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > All, > > > On Feb 20, 2008 5:20 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > I agree with Bill. > > > > > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > > > members of the MAG rotate in. > > > > > > Adam > > > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and > Lee > > agreed to it. > > Apologies if there was a misunderstanding, but i only agreed to this part: > > . We also agree that International organizations having an important > role in > > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > > participation. > > > > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG. > > BTW, I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Ian Peter" Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:32:23 +0530 Size: 18005 URL: From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 12:16:10 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:16:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <4B6DDCDC-C5C4-4321-A9D0-19FD7A2C1B0C@ras.eu.org> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> <4B6DDCDC-C5C4-4321-A9D0-19FD7A2C1B0C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080220171610.GA7698@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [20/02/08 17:26 +0100]: > Let's not confuse the exchange of individual arguments and individual > positions that we have had till now, with the common outcome, which is the > IGC statement. Let us put it this way. My concern with a statement that is bland and neutral enough not to give offense to either side here would be that future actions would result in such marginalization. Language has to be combined with intent, and the sense of the wording used ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 12:18:13 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:18:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <80DC4307-72D9-4A22-9262-18AB043A924F@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:37, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Jeanette, >> What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: >> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 >> groups (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." >> So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's >> saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided >> equally among governments, civil society and the business >> sector" (with the rest of the paragraph). > > I said also this: > > This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead > anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. Well, that's true since the 18th century. Or even since the Romans and the Greeks, if we really want to include all understandings over time. But can't we at least stick to the modern acception of this concept, the Gramscian one? (BTW, I find it quite relevant, in terms of CS as being the sphere where consent can be manufactured.. and challenged as well). I understand IGF and the like is quite a post-modern construct, but still, am I asking for too much? [...] > I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next > IGF meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters > instead. Do you mean that these procedural matters - transparency, accountability.. in one word democracy - are futile? And that we should all be acting simply as experts/advisors/consultants/ entrepreneurs? > Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of > people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main > sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!? Because the IGF is not simply yet another conference or workshop? Or at least shouldn't be? And is supposed to be a global intergovernance forum instead? But back to your position w.r.t. IGC statement: am I right in understanding your position as "status quo is fine" and "let's get busy with other matters"? Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 20 12:19:37 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:19:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF In-Reply-To: <20080220162420.5D90A546E61@mail.nic.mx> References: <20080220162420.5D90A546E61@mail.nic.mx> Message-ID: <20080220171937.GB7698@hserus.net> Oscar A. Robles-Garay [20/02/08 10:24 -0600]: > > Well, they could have a new international airport soon, but its unlikely > they will have enough international non-stops flights and there won't be > way to avoid Delhi's airport... > 1. International nonstop flights not very available currently (and with the current state of bilaterals etc - not very likely) 2. The new airport is several miles (60..70 miles) outside the city. The current airport is right downtown. There is some uniquely indian politicking going on related to both the delhi and hyderabad airports, which were recently privatized: http://ia.rediff.com/money/2008/feb/19airport.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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 12:30:52 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:30:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit : > >> . We also agree that International organizations having an >> important role in >> the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society >> participation. > > Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... > The technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International > organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they > were they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it > doesn't make sense to me. That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to distinguish them from intergovernmental organizations. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 12:31:46 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:01:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080220173218.BE60CE256E@smtp3.electricembers.net> > It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking > about > bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing > undue > confusion. We are talking about three paras all this time which have been presented as a unit a couple of times - by Meryem, by Ian and by me - latest asking clearly your and Lees views on it. The rest of the statement is there in the full (email enclosed again), and open to comment. (Few comments received on the rest of the statement.) So I do not know what you are seeking here. (no, we still do not have a wiki, will look into that issue) Please provide empirical evidence that it is > only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks. Please the email I just now sent to McTim. He said Ian's formulation is the voice of reason. And Ian formulated the text clearly as an amendment over Meryem's three paras (for more clarity see Ian email enclosed in my email to Mctim, though Ian is free to clarify). Lee wrote before he boarded the flight - " Meryem's formulation or Ian's is close enough." Ok, Suresh should still count as against the text, and you and Adam. I think you have the evidence. Any one else you think has been opposing the text clearly and I haven't included here. > I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was > the > one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, > not > about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing. Lee clearly speaks abt Ian's or Meryem's formulation. Ian explains his amendments over an email where I have put the Merytem text with Ian's amendment for comments. I take it to mean that Ian's formulation is the whole amended text, and if anyone is agreeing with Ian's formulation minus the surrounding text the onus on the person to say that. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:28 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Peake, Adam > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > On 2/20/08 3:20 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > >> I agree with Bill. > >> > >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > >> members of the MAG rotate in. > >> > >> Adam > > > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and > Lee > > agreed to it. > > > > I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the > > formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get > rough > > consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth > stakeholder. > > (Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something > which > > you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). > > It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking > about > bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing > undue > confusion. > > For really the last time, I am opposed to "membership should (ideally) > divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector" > with "International organizations having an important role in the > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies > should continue to be represented in the MAG" as a vague fall back. I've > explained why several times. > > I am not saving all the messages in this thread but unless I'm senile, > McTim > doesn't support the "there are only three stakeholders plus IOs" thing, > nor > does Suresh, Adam, or Lee. Please provide empirical evidence that it is > only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks. > > I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was > the > one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, > not > about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing. > > BD > > > On 2/19/08 9:02 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > Just so its clear, my problem with "their current over-representation > should > > be corrected" is many fold. > > > > Firstly, it unnecessarily isolates people with whom we must work. > > > > Secondly, it suggests that everyone on MAG with a relationship with > ICANN, > > ISOC, or IETF is part of the same group and has the same relationship > with > > CS. I don't think that's true. Some participate here, some do not. Some > have > > legitimate non- profit and NGO associations, some don't. > > > > Thirdly, I think some of their representatives are far preferable to the > > alternative which might be more governmental and business > representatives. I > > don't think it is for us to deny them a level of involvement. > > > > Which is why I prefer "their representation should not be at the expense > of > > broader civil society participation". That says it clearly for me, > points > > directly to where the balance needs to be corrected, and doesn't offend > or > > isolate. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:26:24 +0530 Size: 121917 URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 20 12:37:34 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47BC655E.8010206@wzb.eu> Hi Guru, I see I wasn't really clear in my comments. What I meant is that _ontological_ dicussions on what exactly constitutes civil society won't lead anywhere and looks like a waste of time to me. I referred to academic debates to emphasize this point. In my view, civil society constitutes an umbrella term that covers in the broadest sense non-governmental and non-commercial entities. However, it is impossible to draw clear lines for all the border cases such as non-commercial bodies representing commercial entities, etc. So, civil society is a useful term in the context of the composition of advisory groups but it is a much less useful term when we are searching for clear categories that help distinguishing between the caucus and ISOC and similar bodies. jeanette Guru wrote: > Dear Jeanette, > > In an earlier mail you say, quote > > "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, > biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is pragmatic. > The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent and balance > them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and exclusion. For > example, should environmental effects become an important governance issue, > how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder groups from the > MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting > changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with > Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the > stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several > hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present > member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a > business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well". > > Subsequently you mention that the discussion should be stopped since we > won't reach consensensus on the above position. So as I understand, while on > substance you are for having 3 categories, on process you think that it may > be difficult to to achieve consensus due to limited time. > > My view is that discussions on fundamental issues as these are always on ... > Well if we don't achieve consensus then we don't have this in the IGC > statement :-) , but these discussions will help us get a better clarity on > different positions amongst IGC members, and where people are coming from, > what are the principles their positions are based on etc. At the same time I > do find it quite strange to keep asserting that now is not the time ... When > MAG itself is discussing its composition and changes required, CS is not > willing to do the same! > > In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still have - > What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as two very > distinct sets at the same time - > 1. people who have participated in the creation and running of the Internet > - Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and > 2. a set of organizations that are part of the current IG. > > The second definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as > 'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the distinction > between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can someone > enlighten me on this basic issue please.. > > Regards > Guru > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Cc: William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. > We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we won't > reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. > jeanette > > Adam Peake wrote: >> I agree with Bill. >> >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >> members of the MAG rotate in. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Milton, >>> >>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course >>> it does reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. >>> It would certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's >>> a very significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in >>> the current mAG with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative >>> to others, and that this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying >>> that gets across our immediate concern clearly without having to get >>> into questioning who besides CS gets to be at the table in precisely >>> what numbers and what they should be called. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> BD >>> >>> >>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>> >>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived >>>>> that entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of >>>>> whether they are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the >>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? >>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if >>>> they are considered a separate "technical community" then by >>>> definition giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par >>>> with CS reduces the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 12:39:20 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:39:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: >Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>>. We also agree that International organizations having an important role in >>>the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>>representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society >>>participation. >> >>Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... >>The technical/admin Internet organizations are >>not "International organizations" in the sense >>the label's used in UN. And if they were they >>would typically be observers not members. >>Either way, it doesn't make sense to me. > >That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to >distinguish them from intergovernmental >organizations. paragraph 35 e? Adam >Meryem____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 20 12:50:00 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:50:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <80DC4307-72D9-4A22-9262-18AB043A924F@ras.eu.org> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> <80DC4307-72D9-4A22-9262-18AB043A924F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <47BC6848.3090901@wzb.eu> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:37, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >> Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> Jeanette, >>> What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: >>> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups >>> (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group." >>> So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's >>> saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided >>> equally among governments, civil society and the business sector" >>> (with the rest of the paragraph). >> >> I said also this: >> >> This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead >> anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. > > Well, that's true since the 18th century. Or even since the Romans and > the Greeks, if we really want to include all understandings over time. > But can't we at least stick to the modern acception of this concept, the > Gramscian one? (BTW, I find it quite relevant, in terms of CS as being > the sphere where consent can be manufactured.. and challenged as well). > I understand IGF and the like is quite a post-modern construct, but > still, am I asking for too much? The sad truth is that either we use a broad definition that doesn't help much in terms of describing the relationship between the techical community and the caucus or we try for a more specific definition that we won't agree upon. Ontological discussions are tiresome and often distructive. > > [...] >> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF >> meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead. > > Do you mean that these procedural matters - transparency, > accountability.. in one word democracy - are futile? And that we should > all be acting simply as experts/advisors/consultants/entrepreneurs? no. I mean that we spend too much time on arguing about exact form of participation and not enough time on what we actually want to achieve by participation. > >> Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of >> people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main >> sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!? > > Because the IGF is not simply yet another conference or workshop? Or at > least shouldn't be? And is supposed to be a global intergovernance forum > instead? > > But back to your position w.r.t. IGC statement: am I right in > understanding your position as "status quo is fine" and "let's get busy > with other matters"? no, Meryem, this is not an adequate interpretation of what I have been saying. jeanette > > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 12:51:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:21:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <035401c873d8$aa85e150$ff91a3f0$@net> Message-ID: <20080220175138.7A275A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Suresh And this also has to do with my email to Bill in which I am still trying to understand who all really are against the Meryem/ Ian text. When you say Ian's wording below is much > more > preferable to previous variants I have seen. I withdraw my objection Over an email in which Meryem refers also to the whole three paras of Meryem/ Ian formulation >> So why trying to entirely change the sense and the coherence of the >> whole paragraph, with a replacement proposal that is, on top of all >> this, nothing but a weaker repetition of the first two paragraphs of >> the statement? One is liable to take that all three paras as a combined text under examination are ok by you. If not, you should I think expressly say it here, otherwise it becomes difficult for someone trying to gather peoples view to see what kind of consensus is being reached or not. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Meryem Marzouki' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Hit send too soon, very early in the morning in SFO > > However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive CS > participation while at the same time ensuring adequate participation from > the technical community. > > On the other hand, I'm quibbling here. Ian's wording below is much more > preferable to previous variants I have seen. I withdraw my objection. > > suresh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:40 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 15:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > > >> However, their > > >> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > > >> participation. > > > > > > However, it is essential to ensure broader and more inclusive civil > > > society > > > participation > > > > > > That wording ok? > > > > No, Suresh. It's not OK. You're supposed to understand English better > > than I do, but let me explain to you what's wrong with this: > > > > Ian's sentence ("However, their representation should not be at the > > expense of broader civil society participation") was agreed as a > > replacement to previous sentence ("However, their current over- > > representation should be corrected"). Both sentences were proposed at > > the end of the following paragraph: "We also agree that International > > organizations having an important role in the development of Internet- > > related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to > > be represented in the MAG. ." > > > > Even with limited English language skills, anyone would understand > > that "their" refers to the " International organizations having an > > important role in the development of Internet-related technical > > standards and relevant policies", in other words, the so-called > > "technical community". So we're talking about them in this paragraph, > > sot talking about CS participation. > > > > So why trying to entirely change the sense and the coherence of the > > whole paragraph, with a replacement proposal that is, on top of all > > this, nothing but a weaker repetition of the first two paragraphs of > > the statement? Are we kidding here? > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 12:58:44 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:58:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC655E.8010206@wzb.eu> References: <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47BC655E.8010206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:37, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > In my view, civil society constitutes an umbrella term that covers > in the broadest sense non-governmental and non-commercial entities. > However, it is impossible to draw clear lines for all the border > cases such as non-commercial bodies representing commercial > entities, etc. ICC is a good example of non-commercial bodies representing commercial entities. And there are many others. Yet, no one (starting from ICC itself) would classify ICC as CS. > So, civil society is a useful term in the context of the > composition of advisory groups but it is a much less useful term > when we are searching for clear categories that help distinguishing > between the caucus and ISOC and similar bodies. Interesting that you're taking ISOC example when everyone else is rather thinking of ICANN and the like. I see no problem with ISOC: it has always been participating in CS groups, until this new so-called "technical community" came up. And I don't want to enter here in discussions on whether ISOC participated or not to the lobbying that led to this. If there's recognition that there is CS, gov, biz, plus "International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies", and that ISOC choose to participate as CS, that would probably be accepted. If ICANN choose to participate as CS, first that would be ridiculous from their side, second that would lead to serious, and natural, opposition. Meryem > jeanette > Guru wrote: >> Dear Jeanette, >> In an earlier mail you say, quote >> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 >> groups (govs, >> biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is >> pragmatic. >> The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent >> and balance >> them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and >> exclusion. For >> example, should environmental effects become an important >> governance issue, >> how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder >> groups from the >> MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly >> reflecting >> changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I >> agree with >> Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the >> stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear >> indeed several >> hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a >> present >> member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF >> or a >> business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities >> as well". >> Subsequently you mention that the discussion should be stopped >> since we >> won't reach consensensus on the above position. So as I >> understand, while on >> substance you are for having 3 categories, on process you think >> that it may >> be difficult to to achieve consensus due to limited time. >> My view is that discussions on fundamental issues as these are >> always on ... >> Well if we don't achieve consensus then we don't have this in the IGC >> statement :-) , but these discussions will help us get a better >> clarity on >> different positions amongst IGC members, and where people are >> coming from, >> what are the principles their positions are based on etc. At the >> same time I >> do find it quite strange to keep asserting that now is not the >> time ... When >> MAG itself is discussing its composition and changes required, CS >> is not >> willing to do the same! >> In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still >> have - >> What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as >> two very >> distinct sets at the same time - 1. people who have participated >> in the creation and running of the Internet >> - Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and 2. a set of >> organizations that are part of the current IG. The second >> definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as >> 'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the >> distinction >> between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can >> someone >> enlighten me on this basic issue please.. Regards >> Guru >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, >> February 20, 2008 8:37 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. >> We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that >> we won't >> reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. >> jeanette >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> I agree with Bill. >>> >>> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented >>> for the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as >>> new members of the MAG rotate in. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of >>>> course it does reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other >>>> asymmetries. It would certainly be appropriate for a statement >>>> to say that there's a very significant imbalance in stakeholder >>>> group representation in the current mAG with CS being >>>> conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that this >>>> should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >>>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning >>>> who besides CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers >>>> and what they should be called. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> BD >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has >>>>>> perceived that entities (word chosen to avoid the current >>>>>> discussion of whether they are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR >>>>>> and IETF are CS? >>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are >>>>> too careful for that. So I answer your question with another >>>>> one: If the 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what >>>>> are they counted as? >>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And >>>>> if they are considered a separate "technical community" then >>>>> by definition giving them that status as a stakeholder group >>>>> on a par with CS reduces the number of CS people on the MAG, >>>>> does it not? >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 13:02:15 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:02:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On 2/20/08 4:53 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other > members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, > and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of > the MAG? > > I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I I feel like I'm living in The Godfather, Part II---just when I think I'm out, you keep pulling me back in. I don't know why several of us have to keep pleading to drop this and concentrate on completing concise statements on more important points; the way it used to work, when people objected to something, the coordinators and others let it go. Did you enjoy pulling the legs off grasshoppers when you were a little kid;-)? Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the technical community. Nor have I ever said that I think that ICANN or other administrative bodies are properly civil society (although if we are going just on the public sector/for profit/not for profit conception of things, they would be). They are neither fish nor foul, inter alia being (in some cases) negotiation/policymaking bodies. But "international organization" does not encompass all of them, as noted previously. So one needs some sort of new "IO-like" category; administrative bodies (Abs, without the confusing I) is fine. From a representation standpoint, here we are referring only to staff and people in leadership positions, presumably. Two questions follow: 1) are they properly "stakeholders," and if so should they be "allocated" slots alongside the traditional three on the same basis. Your position I guess is no, full stop. Mine is that if you think beyond ICANN (I know it's hard, but it can be done) to the much broader galaxy of bodies that do admin things, it's not quite obvious on what basis one could say that they all don't have stakes in gov decisions, but we do. They certainly seem to think they have stakes, especially with regard to public policy. I am open to persuasion on this point if the discussion can move from broad strokes political views to real engagement with the empirics. Would be a nice seminar in Paris;-) But I haven't seen a compelling argument yet and don't feel the need to resolve this now or to deal with the political consequences when there are far more pressing tasks undone, like deciding preferences on main sessions, format, etc etc etc. 2) Beyond AB staff and leadership there is the vaster galaxy of people who work in these spaces, identify with them, etc. You say who cares what they think or how they self-identify, at the end of the day one has to get paid, and is either in the public sector/for profit/not for profit. Fair enough, fits with the standard conception. But then if paychecks are the sole decider, it gets at least more complicated to argue that people working in non-profit admin bodies are not CS. Jeanette has underscored the murkiness which merits more thought than we have time for. Moreover, one might note that as a practical matter, and as I pointed out the other night, you are then insisting that a whole lot of people who do not identify with or agree with us (to the extent we have any common denominators ourselves) are CS, which presumably means that they should be allocated "CS seats." And since there are far far more of them than us, and they often play direct roles in net matters and have standing with all the relevant power centers, your reclassification would highlight in technicolor that IGC members and fellow travelers are a very very small portion of the CS that has stakes in IG and that the IGF should pay attention to. To take one example, ISOC says it has 28,000 individual members in over 90 chapters around the world, a great many of whom are CS per you. IGC has like 50 members. So what principle should the SG follow in deciding among these and other CS claimants? Contrary to my back and forth with Parminder the other day, it would certainly not be up to us to decide which of such people "CS" can nominate. We're complaining now that only 5 o 7 of our nominees are on the mAG. If you get what you're asking for, the SG would be quite correct in giving us like 1 and splitting the others among other CS groups. Whatever, the point is I just don't see why we need to keep going around on this. If there are people here who feel strongly about how all the various people that might be considered for mAG should be classified and want to insist that there are just three categories, they can say that in the consultation. They don't need to do so under the auspices of IGC, and insisting that everyone should get in line so they can just doesn't work, sorry. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 13:09:20 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:09:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC6848.3090901@wzb.eu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> <80DC4307-72D9-4A22-9262-18AB043A924F@ras.eu.org> <47BC6848.3090901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <989AF47B-6117-45A0-A026-5FBD4CCEE5D3@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:50, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Well, that's true since the 18th century. Or even since the Romans >> and the Greeks, if we really want to include all understandings >> over time. >> But can't we at least stick to the modern acception of this >> concept, the Gramscian one? (BTW, I find it quite relevant, in >> terms of CS as being the sphere where consent can be >> manufactured.. and challenged as well). I understand IGF and the >> like is quite a post-modern construct, but still, am I asking for >> too much? > > The sad truth is that either we use a broad definition that doesn't > help much in terms of describing the relationship between the > techical community and the caucus or we try for a more specific > definition that we won't agree upon. Ontological discussions are > tiresome and often distructive. (Speaking as an academic) I don't find ontological discussions tiresome, and specially not destructive. In this case, on the contrary, they can contribute a lot to the debate, provided that they are not diverted for obscure reasons. >>> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next >>> IGF meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters >>> instead. >> Do you mean that these procedural matters - transparency, >> accountability.. in one word democracy - are futile? And that we >> should all be acting simply as experts/advisors/consultants/ >> entrepreneurs? > > no. I mean that we spend too much time on arguing about exact form > of participation and not enough time on what we actually want to > achieve by participation. Come on, Jeanette. This specious argument has been used periodically (and by the same people) before every IGF consultations and IGF meetings to weaken IGC tentative statements. >> But back to your position w.r.t. IGC statement: am I right in >> understanding your position as "status quo is fine" and "let's get >> busy with other matters"? > > no, Meryem, this is not an adequate interpretation of what I have > been saying. So, could you please comment on current IGC statement, telling us where exactly you agree and where you disagree, like most of us who expressed themselves did? Because otherwise, I'm sorry, but this is not really useful. Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 13:13:12 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:43:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC572E.8060503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080220181339.C4261A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Jeannette > I said also this: > > This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead > anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. But this doesn’t mean that there are no basic principles at all for what we call as CS - excluding government bodies for instance. And if we examine the basis of this logic we can see that it rests on the separation of those (or that) who governs from the governed (and CS is supposed to give participation, accountability seeking etc space for the governed vis a vis the governors). Would that logic not also extend to any body that does governance (IG bodies arguably do governance), to separate these bodies from those on whom this governance impinges... You find no problem with not separating these in the IG spaces? But then why is CS in the IG space at all - is it not to seek civil participation in governance, to seek accountability of gov institutions. How can this be done without first conceptually and structurally separating from them... are these meaningless issues. Do they merely distract us from our path... What path one may question... Does the non-separation of governance institutions from those on whom the governance impinges not favor the former over the latter, who are supposed to be the CS. So, is this non-separation not CS unfriendly. (In fact, it leaves little logic for its existence). Does the insistence of those associated with these governance bodies to seek such non-separation not a tactics to avoid wider accountability. The logic that the CS is ill-defined (deliberately, as CS is the residual sector, and anti/non-institutional sector, it cannot itself get too institutionalized) cannot be extended to mean CS is a meaningless category. These are two very different things. And we are trying to establish the meaning of CS in the IG space. It will remain a contested territory, but we need not hurry to close discussions. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Jeanette, > > > > What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: "As I > > have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, > > biz, cs) instead of adding another group." > > So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's > > saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided equally > > among governments, civil society and the business sector" (with the rest > > of the paragraph). > > I said also this: > > This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead > anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. > > and this: > > The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence > on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps > hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are > much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think > it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal > composition. > > I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF > meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead. > > Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of > people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main > sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!? > jeanette > > > > Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other > > members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, and > > thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of the MAG? > > > > I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know > > McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee > > agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or > > Ian's is close enough."). > > > > Meryem > > > > Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > > >> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. > >> We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we > >> won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. > >> jeanette > >> > >> Adam Peake wrote: > >>> I agree with Bill. > >>> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > >>> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > >>> members of the MAG rotate in. > >>> Adam > >>>> Milton, > >>>> > >>>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course > >>>> it does > >>>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would > >>>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > >>>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the > >>>> current mAG > >>>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and > >>>> that > >>>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our > >>>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > >>>> besides > >>>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they > >>>> should be > >>>> called. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> BD > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived > that > >>>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether > >>>>>> they > >>>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > >>>>> > >>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > >>>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If > the > >>>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted > >>>>> as? > >>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if > they > >>>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > >>>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > >>>>> reduces > >>>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 13:18:56 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:18:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <008A2EE5-2E33-4A79-B9C9-A0D50AEC391A@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:39, Adam Peake a écrit : >> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit : >>> >>>> . We also agree that International organizations having an >>>> important role in >>>> the development of Internet-related technical standards and >>>> relevant >>>> policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, >>>> their >>>> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>>> society >>>> participation. >>> >>> Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... >>> The technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International >>> organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they >>> were they would typically be observers not members. Either way, >>> it doesn't make sense to me. >> >> That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to distinguish them from >> intergovernmental organizations. > > > paragraph 35 e? Yes. This Para 35 has been referenced by Parminder since his earliest proposal draft. 35: those who have a role (not necessarily the same). 35a gov, 35b biz, 35c cs, 35d IGOs, 35e "technical communiity" (ICANN and the like). 36: "valuable contribution by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35" Who can honestly claim here that we're saying anything else in the statement than "back to the basics", "back to the obvious"?____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 13:37:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:07:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080220183825.C9C8267889@smtp1.electricembers.net> (apologies for too many emails) Adam > There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me. Not to all > the statement. I did say that Bill and you did not agree. But I see your later emails. I want clarity on the precise point of your disagreement - is it that what you call 'tech community' should be referred to by that name and not as international or internet organizations. That's what I make out. Fine, only can you please answer my oft asked question about how can we use the same term 'tech community' in two completely different meanings in the same discourse. And how can a set of organizations be called community - in which case what would we call those who are subject to the governance/ polices of these orgs (which group is generally, in normal political science called community). > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > >with due justifications. > > > I am not sure I understand. What would you want such rules to say? > (for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat > responding positively to the sentence you suggest above?) I was following what we asked for in our 07 statements - that " the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment" meaning it shd be openly discussed. And that "rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group" should be "openly established". I could list some others thing Id expect the secretariat to list, But a little later. > In the interest of transparency and understanding the > responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG > we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group > (stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that > person is associated with. Yes, that shd be done. > Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as > his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to > advise himself. But you said MAG is something which came bottom up as a result of the first consultations. You are contradicting yourself here. Unless we challenge the notion of it being an > advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could > do...) Yes, pl see the later part of the statement, we do challenge the mere advisory nature of MAG, and what to see some independent identity/ authority of it. > >. We also agree that International organizations having an important role > in > >the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > >representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > >participation. > > > > > Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... The > technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International > organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were > they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it > doesn't make sense to me. The inter-gov bodies are different. Para 35 uses the term international bodies that make Internet related standards and policy. Quite an apt term I think for ICANN and other such orgs in the global space. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'William Drake' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > At 7:50 PM +0530 2/20/08, Parminder wrote: > > > I agree with Bill. > >> > >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > >> members of the MAG rotate in. > >> > >> Adam > > > >I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and > Lee > >agreed to it. > > > There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me. Not to all > the statement. > > I would like to see a full version of the statement rather than a few > paragraphs (and do appreciate all your work.) > > > >I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the > >formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get > rough > >consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth > stakeholder. > >(Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something > which > >you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). > > > >I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is > >being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is > discussing > >it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the > >presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of > >representation, legitimacies etc. > > > > > >Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's > >amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it. > > > > > >(starts) > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > >with due justifications. > > > I am not sure I understand. What would you want such rules to say? > (for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat > responding positively to the sentence you suggest above?) > > > instead how about something like: > > In the interest of transparency and understanding the > responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG > we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group > (stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that > person is associated with. > > > Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as > his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to > advise himself. Unless we challenge the notion of it being an > advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could > do...) > > > >Full civil society representation is necessary to > >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > What do you mean by "full"? > > > >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an > >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. > > > How about: > > Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one > quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) > > > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > >should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and > the > >business sector. > > > I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new > stakeholder group in the IGF. I have no problem with the > technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the > IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. > > > >. We also agree that International organizations having an important role > in > >the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > >representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > >participation. > > > > > Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... The > technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International > organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were > they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it > doesn't make sense to me. > > Grumpy recalcitrant outlier'ish thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > >> > >> I agree with Bill. > >> > >> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > >> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > >> members of the MAG rotate in. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> >Milton, > >> > > >> >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course > it > >> does > >> >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would > >> >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > >> >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the > current > >> mAG > >> >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and > that > >> >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our > >> >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > >> besides > >> >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they > should > >> be > >> >called. > >> > > >> >Cheers, > >> > > >> >BD > >> > > >> > > >> >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> >>> > >> >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived > that > >> >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether > they > >> >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > >> >> > >> >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > >> >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If > the > >> >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted > as? > >> >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if > they > >> >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > >> >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > >> reduces > >> >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > >> > > >> > > >> >____________________________________________________________ > >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > >> >For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 13:40:17 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:40:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) Message-ID: <47BC7411.5080403@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > Jeannette > >> I said also this: >> >> This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead >> anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. > > But this doesn’t mean that there are no basic principles at all for what we > call as CS - excluding government bodies for instance. And if we examine the > basis of this logic we can see that it rests on the separation of those (or > that) who governs from the governed (and CS is supposed to give > participation, accountability seeking etc space for the governed vis a vis > the governors). Yes, I agree. The term gets its meaning from seperating it from other entities or practices. But in my view, the concept is characterized by a certain fuzzyness that is quite helpful to keep it alive. > > Would that logic not also extend to any body that does governance (IG bodies > arguably do governance), to separate these bodies from those on whom this > governance impinges... In the 1990s, the idea of "self-governance" seemed to include civil society organizations. And in ICANN's eyes, it still does. You find no problem with not separating these in the > IG spaces? But then why is CS in the IG space at all - is it not to seek > civil participation in governance, to seek accountability of gov > institutions. Yes, I agree with you. We probably only disagree about the extent to which a razor-sharp definition is necessary. I think we do ourselves a favor by keeping our identity fuzzy. How can this be done without first conceptually and > structurally separating from them... are these meaningless issues. Not at all. Do they > merely distract us from our path... What path one may question... While we can define such concepts on an individual basis, we should be realistic and modest about what we expect to achieve in a group like this with such different backgrounds and beliefs. > > Does the non-separation of governance institutions from those on whom the > governance impinges not favor the former over the latter, who are supposed > to be the CS. Not necessarily. Not in an environment in which strong presence and participation matters. So, is this non-separation not CS unfriendly. (In fact, it > leaves little logic for its existence). No, here I don't agree. The acknowledgement of fuzzy boundaries does not neglect identity, it just doesn't enforce a sharp profile. Does the insistence of those > associated with these governance bodies to seek such non-separation not a > tactics to avoid wider accountability. > > The logic that the CS is ill-defined (deliberately, as CS is the residual > sector, and anti/non-institutional sector, it cannot itself get too > institutionalized) cannot be extended to mean CS is a meaningless category. > These are two very different things. And we are trying to establish the > meaning of CS in the IG space. It will remain a contested territory, but we > need not hurry to close discussions. My point is that the discussion of the statement should not focus any longer on this aspect but move on to other paragraphs. What I find most crcuial to discuss is the role of the MAG beyond advising the SG and the topics we propose for the next IGF meeting. jeanette > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> >> >> Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> Jeanette, >>> >>> What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt: "As I >>> have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs, >>> biz, cs) instead of adding another group." >>> So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's >>> saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided equally >>> among governments, civil society and the business sector" (with the rest >>> of the paragraph). >> I said also this: >> >> This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead >> anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term. >> >> and this: >> >> The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence >> on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps >> hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are >> much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think >> it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal >> composition. >> >> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF >> meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead. >> >> Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of >> people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main >> sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!? >> jeanette >>> Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other >>> members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, and >>> thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of the MAG? >>> >>> I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know >>> McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee >>> agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or >>> Ian's is close enough."). >>> >>> Meryem >>> >>> Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>> >>>> I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back. >>>> We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we >>>> won't reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> I agree with Bill. >>>>> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for >>>>> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new >>>>> members of the MAG rotate in. >>>>> Adam >>>>>> Milton, >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course >>>>>> it does >>>>>> reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would >>>>>> certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very >>>>>> significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the >>>>>> current mAG >>>>>> with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and >>>>>> that >>>>>> this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our >>>>>> immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who >>>>>> besides >>>>>> CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they >>>>>> should be >>>>>> called. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> BD >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived >> that >>>>>>>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? >>>>>>> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too >>>>>>> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If >> the >>>>>>> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted >>>>>>> as? >>>>>>> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if >> they >>>>>>> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition >>>>>>> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS >>>>>>> reduces >>>>>>> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 13:51:03 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:51:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <008A2EE5-2E33-4A79-B9C9-A0D50AEC391A@ras.eu.org> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> <008A2EE5-2E33-4A79-B9C9-A0D50AEC391A@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: >Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:39, Adam Peake a écrit : > >>>Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit : >>>> >>>>>. We also agree that International >>>>>organizations having an important role in >>>>>the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>>>policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>>>>representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society >>>>>participation. >>>> >>>>Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... >>>>The technical/admin Internet organizations >>>>are not "International organizations" in the >>>>sense the label's used in UN. And if they >>>>were they would typically be observers not >>>>members. Either way, it doesn't make sense to >>>>me. >>> >>>That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to >>>distinguish them from intergovernmental >>>organizations. >> >> >>paragraph 35 e? > >Yes. This Para 35 has been referenced by >Parminder since his earliest proposal draft. >35: those who have a role (not necessarily the >same). 35a gov, 35b biz, 35c cs, 35d IGOs, 35e >"technical communiity" (ICANN and the like). >36: "valuable contribution by the academic and >technical communities within those stakeholder >groups mentioned in paragraph 35" > >Who can honestly claim Me. 35 was a paragraph we argued against over and over, first in WSIS (it's taken from the Geneva documents) up to the last minutes of the Tunis negotiations. It was one of the last paragraphs still contested at about 10PM before the Tunis Summit, if there'd been more time that ridiculous language limiting civil society's role would have been changed (I believe/hope.) "Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. " The chair apologized for not being able to get to it, discussion was out of time. WGIG tried to mend it, didn't work. It's offensive. 36 says: 36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet. "within those stakeholder groups" they are not "International organizations" it means (a) through (e). Don't reference documents you don't understand. International organizations is not code for ICANN and the rest. This paragraph "We also agree that International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation." is wrong. It should be cut. International organizations should be observers. The I*'s should be members, but not over represented as they are now. Thanks, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 14:20:33 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:50:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <008A2EE5-2E33-4A79-B9C9-A0D50AEC391A@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080220192119.363F9A6C8C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to incorporate changes like - removing the number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like "We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists - one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate." Now on this long discussion on the 'tech community' issue. There is enough opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of how MAG's membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and views in favor of saying something simply like - CS is under-represented and this should be corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and construct appropriate language, but basically this is the point) Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of the statement, the MAG membership part and the 'MAG role and structure' part, and in addition some other specific issues. The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further comments may also be given. Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not received consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now comes up is (about the second substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its 'clarity' as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus's 07 statements for some clarity on these issues. And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think self-selection will require the secretariat to recognize some parameters of what or who can go into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all categories, and some definition of what constitutes these categories. Should we then ask only for self selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included and who cant, and on what grounds etc) In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) found no negative comment, but still not enough comments. Parminder (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. Membership of the MAG * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. * As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. * All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special Advisors and Chair * The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. * (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG statement.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 22976 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG statement.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 14:32:39 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 20 févr. 08 à 19:02, William Drake a écrit : > On 2/20/08 4:53 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > >> Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other >> members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, >> and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of >> the MAG? >> >> I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I > > [...] > Two questions follow: 1) are they properly "stakeholders," and if > so should > they be "allocated" slots alongside the traditional three on the > same basis. > Your position I guess is no, full stop. Not "full stop". I support a statement which currently says: "We also agree that International organizations [...] should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation." Clear enough, unless one persists in equating, for whatever reason of his/her own, "not of the same nature thus not in the same position" to: "get out from here". > Mine is that if you think beyond > ICANN (I know it's hard, but it can be done) to the much broader > galaxy of > bodies that do admin things, it's not quite obvious on what basis > one could > say that they all don't have stakes in gov decisions, but we do. ICANN included, they have interests, they have stakes, they have expertise. But they're not stakeholders in the UN sense. Parts of them, or individuals within them, or companies within them, or governments within them, perfectly fit in any of the three stakeholders group. But not them as organizations. > 2) Beyond AB staff and leadership there is the vaster galaxy of > people who > work in these spaces, identify with them, etc. I've repeatedly said, as other did, that there's no problem with these people, as such. And I've certainly never said, nor thought, that this is an issue of paychecks. With this reasoning - which is completely irrelevant - I would myself count for gov. As a civil servant (academic working in a public research institute), I get my paycheck from the government. So what? I'm not even discussing on this list - nor have I spent almost 5 years chairing a WSIS CS caucus - in my professional capacity, but rather as part of my volunteering activity representing a (not funded, and explicitely refusing funding -- this is to answer in advance Suresh's general concerns on this issue, which I share) NGO or sometimes in informal discussions as an individual. The issue is not who pays your salary. But who funds you to explicitely represent it. > Moreover, one might note that as a practical matter, and as I > pointed out > the other night, you are then insisting that a whole lot of people > who do > not identify with or agree with us (to the extent we have any common > denominators ourselves) are CS, which presumably means that they > should be > allocated "CS seats." Being CS doesn't mean agreeing, as anyone may have understood. Same for governments, BTW. Same for business, when their interests are conflicting (and they do many times). > And since there are far far more of them than us, and > they often play direct roles in net matters and have standing with > all the > relevant power centers, your reclassification would highlight in > technicolor > that IGC members and fellow travelers are a very very small portion > of the > CS that has stakes in IG and that the IGF should pay attention to. Yes. You seem not taking into account the wider CS (there is a real world out there). > To take > one example, ISOC says it has 28,000 individual members in over 90 > chapters > around the world, a great many of whom are CS per you. IGC has > like 50 > members. So what principle should the SG follow in deciding among > these and > other CS claimants? Contrary to my back and forth with Parminder > the other > day, it would certainly not be up to us to decide which of such > people "CS" > can nominate. We're complaining now that only 5 o 7 of our > nominees are on > the mAG. If you get what you're asking for, the SG would be quite > correct > in giving us like 1 and splitting the others among other CS groups. This is what I referred to in previous message (answering you actually, I think) by: "the very paradox (or is it the original sin?) of the IGF (and, before IGF, WGIG): participants, starting from MAG members, are supposed to be participating in their individual capacity, while at the same time being selected as "representatives" of a given stakeholder." And why do you acknowledge that ISOC have a weight of 28,000, while considering, say, Parminder as one rather than the n ITfC members or Karen as one rather than the m APC members (and members of members) number? If we follow your reasoning, why accepting that some CS MAG members nominated by the IGC are only individuals, not representing any organization? This reasoning is not sound. Moreover, you're analyzing long term political reconfigurations in simplistic tactic terms. This doesn't mean anything. If it was only a question of simple tactics, then ISOC would have stuffed this caucus list with ISOC-friendly people and they would have been set. Don't you understand that real stakes are elsewhere, and not only for ISOC? Most notably in official and long term wide recognition of the so-called "technical community" as a stakeholder in the same way as the three usual and natural stakeholders? Of course, this doesn't prevent to stuff this caucus and other lists with one's own people, as this might help in daily housekeeping or simply information to feel the overall mood. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 20 15:26:55 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:26:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Izumi, you may find this paper interesting in this respect HYPERLINK "http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf"http://w ww.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf Its from Randy Bush, very much an IETF stalwart and true believer – there is a lot more elsewhere on this problem and various specific aspects of it, but this is a good starting point. Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war in Iraq - “no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] victory will be next month” – To which I would add acute embarrassment at the failure, which leads to denial and coverups and all sorts of attempts to wish the problem will go away - rather than admitting failure, and beginning a serious attempt at a remedy. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza at anr.org] Sent: 21 February 2008 03:21 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing At the Delhi ICANN meeting, I had a lot of conversation on how to deal with the depletion of remaining IPv4 address pool. Many experts in the technical community are now saying that IPv4 based network will not go away in the near future, if not forever, and therefore there is a need to ensure the coexistence and interoperability of the IPv4 and IPv6 networks and their applications. This may pose a serious challenge. As there do not seem sufficient works to examine if all IPv4 based network applications, including firewalls or network management tools, are interoperable with IPv4 based networks. We/they had focused too much on the "allocation" of IPv4 and/or v6, but now the focus should shift to "network operation" - of both v4 and v6. At ICANN ALAC, we have started a policy working group on this issue, and we are going to work on more. It still looks like a very technical issue, but the more I hear from various experst, the wider and deeper problems look like to exist. And this is very much a user issue and public policy matters that we should care about. If you are interested, please see the following page. HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/ipv6-migration/index.cgi?at_large_ipv4_to_ipv6_migrati on_policy"https://st.icann.org/ipv6-migration/index.cgi?at_large_ipv4_to_ipv 6_migration_policy There is a very good presentation prepared by the Japanese government, with their findings from the Working Group. It's abit lengthy, and PDF link, but worth to look at. HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/ipv6-migration/attachments/at_large_ip v4_to_ipv6_migration_policy:20080213104747-1-18800/files/IPV6%20MIC%20Dec%20 2007.pdf"https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/ipv6-migration/attachments/at_ large_ipv4_to_ipv6_migration_policy:20080213104747-1-18800/files/IPV6%20MIC% 20Dec%202007.pdf best, izumi No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1287 - Release Date: 19/02/2008 10:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008 10:26 -------------- 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 Wed Feb 20 15:49:02 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:49:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/20/08 8:32 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: >> Two questions follow: 1) are they properly "stakeholders," and if >> so should >> they be "allocated" slots alongside the traditional three on the >> same basis. >> Your position I guess is no, full stop. > > Not "full stop". I support a statement which currently says: "We also > agree that International organizations [...] should continue to be > represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be > at the expense of broader civil society participation." Clear enough, > unless one persists in equating, for whatever reason of his/her own, > "not of the same nature thus not in the same position" to: "get out > from here". Or unless one is unable to detect a clear answer to whether you are saying they are "stakeholders" or just some nebulous thing that we'll deign to include. >> Mine is that if you think beyond >> ICANN (I know it's hard, but it can be done) to the much broader >> galaxy of >> bodies that do admin things, it's not quite obvious on what basis >> one could >> say that they all don't have stakes in gov decisions, but we do. > > ICANN included, they have interests, they have stakes, they have > expertise. But they're not stakeholders in the UN sense. Parts of > them, or individuals within them, or companies within them, or > governments within them, perfectly fit in any of the three > stakeholders group. But not them as organizations. This is clearer. What's not clear is whether that captures all the relevant ABs, e.g. those that are staff operations not negotiation forums for various other constituencies. >> 2) Beyond AB staff and leadership there is the vaster galaxy of >> people who >> work in these spaces, identify with them, etc. > > I've repeatedly said, as other did, that there's no problem with > these people, as such. And I've certainly never said, nor thought, > that this is an issue of paychecks. With this reasoning - which is I haven't heard any other principled basis for allocation to date, but I clearly agree it's inadequate. > completely irrelevant - I would myself count for gov. As a civil > servant (academic working in a public research institute), I get my > paycheck from the government. So what? I'm not even discussing on > this list - nor have I spent almost 5 years chairing a WSIS CS caucus > - in my professional capacity, but rather as part of my volunteering > activity representing a (not funded, and explicitely refusing funding > -- this is to answer in advance Suresh's general concerns on this > issue, which I share) NGO or sometimes in informal discussions as an > individual. The issue is not who pays your salary. But who funds you > to explicitely represent it. So then people shape shift back and forth between categories when they consult etc? Just saying Meryem, this obviously merits more consideration rather than a rushed unilateral pronouncement we'll have to live with. >> Moreover, one might note that as a practical matter, and as I >> pointed out >> the other night, you are then insisting that a whole lot of people >> who do >> not identify with or agree with us (to the extent we have any common >> denominators ourselves) are CS, which presumably means that they >> should be >> allocated "CS seats." > > Being CS doesn't mean agreeing, as anyone may have understood. Same > for governments, BTW. Same for business, when their interests are > conflicting (and they do many times). Clearly not;-) >> And since there are far far more of them than us, and >> they often play direct roles in net matters and have standing with >> all the >> relevant power centers, your reclassification would highlight in >> technicolor >> that IGC members and fellow travelers are a very very small portion >> of the >> CS that has stakes in IG and that the IGF should pay attention to. > > Yes. You seem not taking into account the wider CS (there is a real > world out there). I am, precisely. But acting as if the reality was otherwise, based inter alia on who has had the interest/means to be involved and self-identifications, has served "our" interests. Your objective is to drop the act and reduce the claim of people who call themselves CS in this process? >> To take >> one example, ISOC says it has 28,000 individual members in over 90 >> chapters >> around the world, a great many of whom are CS per you. IGC has >> like 50 >> members. So what principle should the SG follow in deciding among >> these and >> other CS claimants? Contrary to my back and forth with Parminder >> the other >> day, it would certainly not be up to us to decide which of such >> people "CS" >> can nominate. We're complaining now that only 5 o 7 of our >> nominees are on >> the mAG. If you get what you're asking for, the SG would be quite >> correct >> in giving us like 1 and splitting the others among other CS groups. > > This is what I referred to in previous message (answering you > actually, I think) by: "the very paradox (or is it the original sin?) > of the IGF (and, before IGF, WGIG): participants, starting from MAG > members, are supposed to be participating in their individual > capacity, while at the same time being selected as "representatives" There's an unresolved ambiguity there but I'm not sure I'd put it that way. > of a given stakeholder." And why do you acknowledge that ISOC have a > weight of 28,000, while considering, say, Parminder as one rather > than the n ITfC members or Karen as one rather than the m APC members > (and members of members) number? If we follow your reasoning, why I'm saying that's what could be said. No matter how you slice it or count membership of orgs represented by individual IGC members, it's a Pandora's box tactically. > accepting that some CS MAG members nominated by the IGC are only > individuals, not representing any organization? This reasoning is not > sound. Moreover, you're analyzing long term political Ok, add up the numbers, people in orgs in which mAG reps work and see how much better we come out. > reconfigurations in simplistic tactic terms. This doesn't mean > anything. If it was only a question of simple tactics, then ISOC Now you're just being unpleasant, why? I simply pointed out the practical implications of what you're saying for those who actually participate in IGF meetings. There might be a case on conceptual grounds (although it's not clear yet) but it has some practical implications worth being clear about. > would have stuffed this caucus list with ISOC-friendly people and Why should they bother, we're completely capable of self-destructing, as this extended and unproductive discussion is demonstrating. > they would have been set. Don't you understand that real stakes are > elsewhere, and not only for ISOC? Most notably in official and long Actually I do, part of why I think this whole thing has been such an ill-considered black hole. > term wide recognition of the so-called "technical community" as a > stakeholder in the same way as the three usual and natural > stakeholders? Of course, this doesn't prevent to stuff this caucus > and other lists with one's own people, as this might help in daily > housekeeping or simply information to feel the overall mood. Ok, whatever. So are we done, please? Maybe we could talk about things people might agree on, as I suggested last week? IGF format, main sessions, that sort of thing? 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 16:53:06 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:53:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Date change and possible Venue Change for IGF In-Reply-To: <20080220171937.GB7698@hserus.net> References: <20080220162420.5D90A546E61@mail.nic.mx> <20080220171937.GB7698@hserus.net> Message-ID: I was looking at the other 2008 possible dates - it looks like it will have to be Nov 17 or earlier, to avoid US Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Or maybe US Thanksgiving isn't important, just one country?). One good thing from Rio was that the dates and site were announced there, so there was a year, actually 13 months, to plan. I've already made lots of arrangements for the given dates and venue - I am pretty disappointed; I'm not sure if the same deals and awards will be available at shorter notice. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 16:56:57 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:56:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <6F9FFDA8-C422-45F4-8B70-326F1BE9EB0F@ras.eu.org> <008A2EE5-2E33-4A79-B9C9-A0D50AEC391A@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <25CC7AC2-C170-4071-8BEC-A5CD62095A14@ras.eu.org> Le 20 févr. 08 à 19:51, Adam Peake a écrit : >> Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:39, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>>> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> . We also agree that International organizations having an >>>>>> important role in >>>>>> the development of Internet-related technical standards and >>>>>> relevant >>>>>> policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>>>>> However, their >>>>>> representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> participation. >>>>> >>>>> Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... >>>>> The technical/admin Internet organizations are not >>>>> "International organizations" in the sense the label's used in >>>>> UN. And if they were they would typically be observers not >>>>> members. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me. >>>> >>>> That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to distinguish them from >>>> intergovernmental organizations. >>> >>> >>> paragraph 35 e? >> >> Yes. This Para 35 has been referenced by Parminder since his >> earliest proposal draft. >> 35: those who have a role (not necessarily the same). 35a gov, 35b >> biz, 35c cs, 35d IGOs, 35e "technical communiity" (ICANN and the >> like). >> 36: "valuable contribution by the academic and technical >> communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph >> 35" >> >> Who can honestly claim > > > Me. 35 was a paragraph we argued against over and over That's true. But it's often working this way with such UN- (or regional org) level documents. The document is weak, we fight it, then it is adopted, still weak. Then over time the situation becomes even worse that we thought it could ever become, and this weak document is the best thing we can rely on as an official document, to remind the concerned organization its duty. Should I give examples? > 36 says: > > 36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and > technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in > paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the > Internet. > > "within those stakeholder groups" they are not "International > organizations" it means (a) through (e). May I draw your attention to the difference between "technical communities" and "the technical community"? And to the evolution in balance of powers as well as in kind of CS representation and understanding from WSIS times to IGF times? "technical communities" (specially when referred to in the same sentence as "the academic") means exactly what makes McTim argues that they should be CS. And what makes Suresh asking about his APCAUCE. To only cite recent exemples on this list. These are among "technical communities". And yes, the play the same role as academic (advice, expertise, etc.). And are integral part of "those stakeholder groups mentioned in par 35...", including, but not only, CS. > Don't reference documents you don't understand. International > organizations is not code for ICANN and the rest. This paragraph Bill is feeling that I'm unpleasant to him. What should I say of your sentence above? Anyway.. You know the codes, you have the UN keys. Fine.. > "We also agree that International organizations having an important > role in > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > participation." > > is wrong. It should be cut. Suppose it's wrong (per your above keys). Why should it be cut instead of renaming these "International organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies" using the appropriate code, if that's your point. Or is your point that you don't want an IGC statement says that they "should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation." > International organizations should be observers. > > The I*'s should be members, but not over represented as they are now. That simply an opinion. Among others. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Feb 20 17:17:42 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:17:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 20 févr. 08 à 21:49, William Drake a écrit : > > On 2/20/08 8:32 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > >>> completely irrelevant - I would myself count for gov. As a civil >> servant (academic working in a public research institute), I get my >> paycheck from the government. So what? I'm not even discussing on >> this list - nor have I spent almost 5 years chairing a WSIS CS caucus >> - in my professional capacity, but rather as part of my volunteering >> activity representing a (not funded, and explicitely refusing funding >> -- this is to answer in advance Suresh's general concerns on this >> issue, which I share) NGO or sometimes in informal discussions as an >> individual. The issue is not who pays your salary. But who funds you >> to explicitely represent it. > > So then people shape shift back and forth between categories when they > consult etc? I always inform the audience of my position when speaking. It's the least minimum intellectual honesty, so people understand where you're standing from and take this into account as part of the context. Well, if someone has 10 hats, it's becoming rather complex. But the companies/organizations for which s/he consults hopefully will soon understand the situation, and prefer sending another *representative*. >> accepting that some CS MAG members nominated by the IGC are only >> individuals, not representing any organization? This reasoning is not >> sound. Moreover, you're analyzing long term political > > Ok, add up the numbers, people in orgs in which mAG reps work and > see how > much better we come out. > >> reconfigurations in simplistic tactic terms. This doesn't mean >> anything. If it was only a question of simple tactics, then ISOC > > Now you're just being unpleasant, why? As I just mentioned in answering Adam's mail, well, I can also ask the same question. In any case, this was not my intention, and I apologize if what I said about the analysis appeared unpleasant to you. > I simply pointed out the practical > implications of what you're saying for those who actually > participate in IGF > meetings. There might be a case on conceptual grounds (although > it's not > clear yet) but it has some practical implications worth being clear > about. No, I still don't agree with you on this, because the analysis is biased, as I tried to explain. >> would have stuffed this caucus list with ISOC-friendly people and > > Why should they bother, we're completely capable of self- > destructing, as > this extended and unproductive discussion is demonstrating. I could make exactly the same comment. And, actually, I do. And we haven't achieved anything. >> they would have been set. Don't you understand that real stakes are >> elsewhere, and not only for ISOC? Most notably in official and long > > Actually I do, part of why I think this whole thing has been such an > ill-considered black hole. At least we agree on what's at stake. But I may have missed your tentative to address this. How should we have proceeded, according to you? > Ok, whatever. So are we done, please? You are done. > Maybe we could talk about things > people might agree on, as I suggested last week? IGF format, main > sessions, > that sort of thing? yes, yes, I already know: "CS needs better representation", full stop. etc. For sure, we might agree on this. Far beyond this caucus. I'm wondering (actually since right after WSIS, you may get back to the archives), why we go on calling this list a 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 20 18:53:35 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:53:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Believe me, or your lying eyes? Message-ID: Meryem, everyone, I know I'm being hypocritical saying we all need to focus on Parminder's texts, and then writing a note like this. Bill brought up the Godfather, I bring up Groucho Marx's line: 'who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?' At one level of analysis we all know the world can be divided into government, business and civil society, or even more simply government and society, but as Jeanette noted that doesn't solve the border cases. And it's not our eyes lying saying there is something new here defining the border of the Internet world, the Internet tech admin/whatever orgs are all pretty new: ISOC 16 yrs old, ICANN 10, IETF older than that but always and intentionally an amorphous but very significant player. And oh yeah IGF is all of 2 years old and doesn't even know when its next birthday/meeting will take place. So Meryem, Parminder, Guru, et al, we do see what you see. (As opposed to Bill denying any associations, I was a founding member of ISOC, donated $ to ICANN (as did foundations I remind folks) in its first year, and yeah I have attended IETF meetings. Not sure if that loses or wins me credibility, probably both, but yes Senator I have consorted with all of the above. Noone's saying folks eyes are lying and there aren't new bodies out and about in the Internet governance space, and further noone's saying the old categories are adequate. In fact that's kind of the whole point of the caucus right, so I can appreciate the frustration felt by folks as some of us say, sort of, 'let's move along, and just believe me, not your lying eyes.' I think the general point, and belatedly a tip of the cap to all those who have insisted we debate this now, is that some of us were (and still are) in doubt cs could reach definitive conclusions at this time, beyond the statements in Parminder's current drafts which I have already said I can live with. I and others have doubted we'd get everyone else's instant buy-in to a new vocabulary and categories. Which is not to say your eyes are lying and that the current categories work well etc. So real point is we do need to keep communicating on this, raising the issue and seeking greater clarity is not inappropriate. I am guessing though it will take til IGF V to get consensus. Sooner is better, but by next week I doubt we can take this much further. Unless you all just believe me, and not your lying eyes : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 20 20:05:19 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:05:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Synthesis paper (and news about IGF 2008 location) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Adam for the info below. How about the venue? IT was almost a "known secret" in ICANN Delhi meeting that it may move to Hyderabard. Markus was also at ICANN meeting though I had no coversation on this matter with him. izumi 2008/2/21, Adam Peake : > > I imagine now OK to forward such email. > > > > > >Dear colleagues, > > > >A synthesis paper that reflects the > >contributions we received is now available on > >our Web site: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf > > > >You will note that we have changed the language > >for the announcement of the 2008 meeting in > >India. We have received many questions with > >regard to the date, as concerns were expressed > >regarding the clash of dates with the Islamic > >holiday Eid El-Adha. The Indian hosts are > >looking for alternatives, to accommodate our > >Islamic stakeholders. A solution is in the > >pipeline, but needs formal Ministerial approval > >before it can be announced. We were assured that > >they would be ready to do so shortly. The new > >language on our Web site reflects this evolving > >situation. > > > >Best regards > >Markus > > > > > Good to see the secretariat and hosts responding > quickly. We'll hear news in good time, let's > continue seeing what can be done for the > consultation. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 Wed Feb 20 22:07:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:37:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release Message-ID: <20080221030749.3C7F4A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Guru Can you see this and confirm it to guru -- on what we are doing in floss pl see a recent email from me. param > -----Original Message----- > From: Vinay Sreenivasa [mailto:vinay at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:12 PM > To: Shilpa Rao > Cc: Guru; 'Anita'; 'Parminder'; 'Roshni Nuggehalli'; 'Mridula' > Subject: Re: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release > > Hi All, > > Sorry for the delay. Was busy with field visit yesterday and some walk-in > interview for tech support today, plus a couple of other things. I have > prepared > a 1 page brief to be posted across to various lists. I have included it in > text > below and added as attachment. Guru,Param can you please review before I > send it > out? > > Also - another question I have is, are we mailing out to the lists just as > FYI > or do we expect any action/response from them? If it is just information I > am > wondering if I should add a line saying that this is just to inform the > members > of a newly launched FOSS project.If we expect any action, we should state > that > as well I guess. Let me know your thoughts. > > Thanks, > Vinay. > > ***************************************************** > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Hello All, > > Greetings from ITforChange! > > The European Union has launched a study on Open Source as a Development > Tool. > Dubbed FLOSS Include and funded under the EU's 7th Framework Programme, > the two > year project will be carried out by a project team of research institutes, > government agencies, private companies and non-governmental organizations > in 9 > countries - Argentina, Cambodia, China, Ghana, India, South Africa, Spain > and > the UK. The consortium is led by UNU-MERIT, a joint research and training > centre > of United Nations University and Maastricht University in the Netherlands > and > includes among \other organizations, Canonical Ltd. > > The FLOSS Include project will carry out an in-depth analysis of the > technical, > business and socio-political needs for the growth of FLOSS use, deployment > and > development in the target regions. > In pilot efforts, the partners will implement FLOSS solutions, tools and > services to ensure they are cost-effective and practical for each > environment. > The FLOSS Include aims to ensure a lasting impact beyond the project > duration. > > A project factsheet is available at http://flossinclude.eu > > ITfC and Floss Include > > ITforChange (http://www.itforchange.net/) and Sarai, India > (http://www.sarai.net/) are the two organizations in India, which will be > a part > of this project. As part of FLOSS Include, ITfC will focus on FLOSS and > the > public sector. We will be studying the role of public sector agencies in > producing, organizing and stimulating production of FLOSS with high > societal > impact. Much of social processes, like public delivery of health, > education and > livelihood support services have a central role for public authorities. > So, > public systems and structures have a crucial role in pushing FLOSS in > activities > with high societal impact. > > We are also interested in working on FLOSS for public administration, and > sharing of FLOSS applications among public sector bodies. Currently > commercial, > proprietary software is preferred (largely but not always) and we would > like to > work on seeing FLOSS being used in a big way for Public administration. > We will also study government polices for FLOSS an area where which is has > a > pro-industry /commercial software orientation and no real enthusiasm for > FLOSS. > > Since the issues of standards have a strong connection to the role of > public > sector - both as a major bulk user of software and being able to set > default > standards through using them in public application , and > through direct policy interventions - we will have a strong focus on the > inter-operability and open standards aspects in our research. > > > > > Vinay Sreenivasa > IT for Change > 91-(0)821-2343527 > 91-98805-95032 > vinay at itforchange.net > www.ITforChange.net > > > Quoting Shilpa Rao : > > > Hey Vinay, > > > > Sorry to email you again about this, but have you made some progress in > > this regard? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Shilpa G. Rao > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > ****************************** > > T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > www.ITforChange.net > > ****************************** > > > > > > > > Shilpa Rao wrote: > > > Hi Vinay, > > > > > > Can you take on sending this email to the list-servs by EOD today? > > > > > > It should go out today as there have co-ordinated press releases in > > > all countries world wide. I have attached the document that needs to > > > be sent out. Will give you a brief about this on the phone. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Shilpa > > > > > > > > > Shilpa G. Rao > > > IT for Change > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > ****************************** > > > T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > > F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > > E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > ****************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Sreenivasa wrote: > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> Will send a consolidated list of foss groups tomorrow. Also, for > egov, we > > also > > >> need to mail eGovIndia, or Guru is that what you meant when you said > India > > egov? > > >> > > >> Please also look at the link for this conference- > > >> http://freed.in/2008/ > > >> > > >> Some of the topics are - > > >> > > >> speaker: Venkatesh Hariharan > > >> Organisation / Affiliation Red Hat, IndLinux, ODF Alliance, Open > Source > > >> Foundation of India, Knowledge Commons > > >> Title of Talk Open Standards, Open Society > > >> Talk Abstract The recent debate around OOXML has focused an > > unprecendented > > >> amount of attention around Open Standards. Standards are the first > control > > point > > >> in a knowledge economy and control over standards is a powerful tool > for > > >> extracting monopoly rent. The open standards movement aims to ensure > that > > public > > >> data is stored in public formats and that users have the freedom to > encode > > and > > >> decode their data. This talk will explain the implications of open > > standards for > > >> India and also elaborate on the policy initiatives that the ODF > Alliance > > and the > > >> open source and free software community in India has been involved > in. > > >> > > >> OpenOffice.Org,Various Linux User Groups > > >> Title of Talk Communities is an oft used word > > >> Talk Abstract In the domain of Free and Open Source software > communities > > is an > > >> oft used word. There are various communities - of creation, of > consumption > > and > > >> of criticism. The one thing that gets lost in the din is that "it is > not > > about > > >> the code". A free culture requires putting in places practices of > sharing > > and > > >> collaboration. The tools blend in with the culture. This talk touches > upon > > the > > >> practices of a free and collaborative culture which organically leads > to > > >> creation of people interested in the work. Trying to avoid the glass > > walling of > > >> communities, it is an attempt to explore the building up of a > > collaborative > > >> creative practice. > > >> > > >> > > >> talks at freed.in/2008 - Remote Management of Rural Telecentre > Computers > > >> > > >> Filed Under Talks > > >> Name of Speaker: Kiran Jonnalagadda > > >> Organisation / Affiliation Comat Technologies > > >> Title of Talk Remote management of rural telecentre computers > > >> Talk Abstract India is currently witnessing a race to setup > rural > > information > > >> telecentres in every single village across the country. These are > shops > > with a > > >> computer, printer and internet connection, delivering a variety of > > electronic > > >> services and serving as community interaction centres.Providing > technical > > >> support to these centres is a significant challenge, given the > limitations > > of > > >> traditional support infrastructure, whether roads or a reasonably > > competent > > >> techie in the nearest urban area. > > >> > > >> This talk will present an open source work-in-progress framework for > > remote > > >> management of these computers, supporting both Linux and Windows. > > >> > > >> freed.in is the leading community event in the Indian sub-continent > and > > the > > >> developing world, promoting freedom in technology, software and other > > related > > >> fields, and personal privacy. The annual event makes free and open > source > > >> software more visible to the world, and shares its excitement with > > everybody. > > >> freed.in helps nurture the community and enables networking within > and > > outside > > >> the community in a fun environment. The event strives towards seeding > of > > new > > >> projects. > > >> > > >> > > >> Vinay Sreenivasa > > >> IT for Change > > >> 91-(0)821-2343527 > > >> 91-98805-95032 > > >> vinay at itforchange.net > > >> www.ITforChange.net > > >> > > >> > > >> Quoting Guru : > > >> > > >> > > >>> Vinay > > >>> > > >>> There will be foss mail lists - vinay any info > > >>> > > >>> India egov and egov lists since the project will involve study > > Government > > >>> foss use > > >>> > > >>> Also can you upload this on our website as well > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Shilpa Rao [mailto:shilpa at itforchange.net] > > >>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:24 PM > > >>> To: Anita; Parminder; Gurumurthy K; Roshni Nuggehalli > > >>> Subject: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release > > >>> > > >>> Hi All, > > >>> > > >>> I have sent across a press release to ToI, Deccan and The Hindu. > > >>> > > >>> Just wanted to know what list-servs do you want to post this on? > Will > > call > > >>> Sarai and discuss after we come up with a list. > > >>> > > >>> Bytes and what else?? Any other Open Source Communities e-lists? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Shilpa > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> Shilpa G. Rao > > >>> IT for Change > > >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >>> ****************************** > > >>> T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > >>> F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > >>> E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > >>> www.ITforChange.net > > >>> ****************************** > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Floss Include for list-servs.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 20 22:19:00 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:49:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release In-Reply-To: <20080221030749.3C7F4A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080221031926.0ED7FA6C45@smtp2.electricembers.net> PL IGNORE. The mail client read guru's g for governance list, and I pressed enter and sent. Its a intra-ITfC email. I apologize. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FW: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release > > Guru > > Can you see this and confirm it to guru -- on what we are doing in floss > pl > see a recent email from me. param > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vinay Sreenivasa [mailto:vinay at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:12 PM > > To: Shilpa Rao > > Cc: Guru; 'Anita'; 'Parminder'; 'Roshni Nuggehalli'; 'Mridula' > > Subject: Re: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release > > > > Hi All, > > > > Sorry for the delay. Was busy with field visit yesterday and some walk- > in > > interview for tech support today, plus a couple of other things. I have > > prepared > > a 1 page brief to be posted across to various lists. I have included it > in > > text > > below and added as attachment. Guru,Param can you please review before I > > send it > > out? > > > > Also - another question I have is, are we mailing out to the lists just > as > > FYI > > or do we expect any action/response from them? If it is just information > I > > am > > wondering if I should add a line saying that this is just to inform the > > members > > of a newly launched FOSS project.If we expect any action, we should > state > > that > > as well I guess. Let me know your thoughts. > > > > Thanks, > > Vinay. > > > > ***************************************************** > > Apologies for cross-posting. > > > > Hello All, > > > > Greetings from ITforChange! > > > > The European Union has launched a study on Open Source as a Development > > Tool. > > Dubbed FLOSS Include and funded under the EU's 7th Framework Programme, > > the two > > year project will be carried out by a project team of research > institutes, > > government agencies, private companies and non-governmental > organizations > > in 9 > > countries - Argentina, Cambodia, China, Ghana, India, South Africa, > Spain > > and > > the UK. The consortium is led by UNU-MERIT, a joint research and > training > > centre > > of United Nations University and Maastricht University in the > Netherlands > > and > > includes among \other organizations, Canonical Ltd. > > > > The FLOSS Include project will carry out an in-depth analysis of the > > technical, > > business and socio-political needs for the growth of FLOSS use, > deployment > > and > > development in the target regions. > > In pilot efforts, the partners will implement FLOSS solutions, tools and > > services to ensure they are cost-effective and practical for each > > environment. > > The FLOSS Include aims to ensure a lasting impact beyond the project > > duration. > > > > A project factsheet is available at http://flossinclude.eu > > > > ITfC and Floss Include > > > > ITforChange (http://www.itforchange.net/) and Sarai, India > > (http://www.sarai.net/) are the two organizations in India, which will > be > > a part > > of this project. As part of FLOSS Include, ITfC will focus on FLOSS and > > the > > public sector. We will be studying the role of public sector agencies in > > producing, organizing and stimulating production of FLOSS with high > > societal > > impact. Much of social processes, like public delivery of health, > > education and > > livelihood support services have a central role for public authorities. > > So, > > public systems and structures have a crucial role in pushing FLOSS in > > activities > > with high societal impact. > > > > We are also interested in working on FLOSS for public administration, > and > > sharing of FLOSS applications among public sector bodies. Currently > > commercial, > > proprietary software is preferred (largely but not always) and we would > > like to > > work on seeing FLOSS being used in a big way for Public administration. > > We will also study government polices for FLOSS an area where which is > has > > a > > pro-industry /commercial software orientation and no real enthusiasm for > > FLOSS. > > > > Since the issues of standards have a strong connection to the role of > > public > > sector - both as a major bulk user of software and being able to set > > default > > standards through using them in public application , and > > through direct policy interventions - we will have a strong focus on > the > > inter-operability and open standards aspects in our research. > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Sreenivasa > > IT for Change > > 91-(0)821-2343527 > > 91-98805-95032 > > vinay at itforchange.net > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > Quoting Shilpa Rao : > > > > > Hey Vinay, > > > > > > Sorry to email you again about this, but have you made some progress > in > > > this regard? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Shilpa G. Rao > > > IT for Change > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > ****************************** > > > T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > > F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > > E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > ****************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > Shilpa Rao wrote: > > > > Hi Vinay, > > > > > > > > Can you take on sending this email to the list-servs by EOD today? > > > > > > > > It should go out today as there have co-ordinated press releases in > > > > all countries world wide. I have attached the document that needs to > > > > be sent out. Will give you a brief about this on the phone. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shilpa > > > > > > > > > > > > Shilpa G. Rao > > > > IT for Change > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > ****************************** > > > > T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > > > F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > > > E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > ****************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Sreenivasa wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > > > >> > > > >> Will send a consolidated list of foss groups tomorrow. Also, for > > egov, we > > > also > > > >> need to mail eGovIndia, or Guru is that what you meant when you > said > > India > > > egov? > > > >> > > > >> Please also look at the link for this conference- > > > >> http://freed.in/2008/ > > > >> > > > >> Some of the topics are - > > > >> > > > >> speaker: Venkatesh Hariharan > > > >> Organisation / Affiliation Red Hat, IndLinux, ODF Alliance, > Open > > Source > > > >> Foundation of India, Knowledge Commons > > > >> Title of Talk Open Standards, Open Society > > > >> Talk Abstract The recent debate around OOXML has focused an > > > unprecendented > > > >> amount of attention around Open Standards. Standards are the first > > control > > > point > > > >> in a knowledge economy and control over standards is a powerful > tool > > for > > > >> extracting monopoly rent. The open standards movement aims to > ensure > > that > > > public > > > >> data is stored in public formats and that users have the freedom to > > encode > > > and > > > >> decode their data. This talk will explain the implications of open > > > standards for > > > >> India and also elaborate on the policy initiatives that the ODF > > Alliance > > > and the > > > >> open source and free software community in India has been involved > > in. > > > >> > > > >> OpenOffice.Org,Various Linux User Groups > > > >> Title of Talk Communities is an oft used word > > > >> Talk Abstract In the domain of Free and Open Source software > > communities > > > is an > > > >> oft used word. There are various communities - of creation, of > > consumption > > > and > > > >> of criticism. The one thing that gets lost in the din is that "it > is > > not > > > about > > > >> the code". A free culture requires putting in places practices of > > sharing > > > and > > > >> collaboration. The tools blend in with the culture. This talk > touches > > upon > > > the > > > >> practices of a free and collaborative culture which organically > leads > > to > > > >> creation of people interested in the work. Trying to avoid the > glass > > > walling of > > > >> communities, it is an attempt to explore the building up of a > > > collaborative > > > >> creative practice. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> talks at freed.in/2008 - Remote Management of Rural Telecentre > > Computers > > > >> > > > >> Filed Under Talks > > > >> Name of Speaker: Kiran Jonnalagadda > > > >> Organisation / Affiliation Comat Technologies > > > >> Title of Talk Remote management of rural telecentre computers > > > >> Talk Abstract India is currently witnessing a race to setup > > rural > > > information > > > >> telecentres in every single village across the country. These are > > shops > > > with a > > > >> computer, printer and internet connection, delivering a variety of > > > electronic > > > >> services and serving as community interaction centres.Providing > > technical > > > >> support to these centres is a significant challenge, given the > > limitations > > > of > > > >> traditional support infrastructure, whether roads or a reasonably > > > competent > > > >> techie in the nearest urban area. > > > >> > > > >> This talk will present an open source work-in-progress framework > for > > > remote > > > >> management of these computers, supporting both Linux and Windows. > > > >> > > > >> freed.in is the leading community event in the Indian sub-continent > > and > > > the > > > >> developing world, promoting freedom in technology, software and > other > > > related > > > >> fields, and personal privacy. The annual event makes free and open > > source > > > >> software more visible to the world, and shares its excitement with > > > everybody. > > > >> freed.in helps nurture the community and enables networking within > > and > > > outside > > > >> the community in a fun environment. The event strives towards > seeding > > of > > > new > > > >> projects. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Vinay Sreenivasa > > > >> IT for Change > > > >> 91-(0)821-2343527 > > > >> 91-98805-95032 > > > >> vinay at itforchange.net > > > >> www.ITforChange.net > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Quoting Guru : > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Vinay > > > >>> > > > >>> There will be foss mail lists - vinay any info > > > >>> > > > >>> India egov and egov lists since the project will involve study > > > Government > > > >>> foss use > > > >>> > > > >>> Also can you upload this on our website as well > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Shilpa Rao [mailto:shilpa at itforchange.net] > > > >>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:24 PM > > > >>> To: Anita; Parminder; Gurumurthy K; Roshni Nuggehalli > > > >>> Subject: FLOSS INCLUDE - Press Release > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi All, > > > >>> > > > >>> I have sent across a press release to ToI, Deccan and The Hindu. > > > >>> > > > >>> Just wanted to know what list-servs do you want to post this on? > > Will > > > call > > > >>> Sarai and discuss after we come up with a list. > > > >>> > > > >>> Bytes and what else?? Any other Open Source Communities e-lists? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Shilpa > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Shilpa G. Rao > > > >>> IT for Change > > > >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > >>> ****************************** > > > >>> T:(00-91-80) 26654134,26536890 > > > >>> F:(00-91-80) 41461055 > > > >>> E: shilpa at itforchange.net > > > >>> www.ITforChange.net > > > >>> ****************************** > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 20 22:41:22 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:41:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Synthesis paper (and news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:05 AM +0900 2/21/08, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Thank you Adam for the info below. How about the venue? >IT was almost a "known secret" in ICANN Delhi meeting >that it may move to Hyderabard. Markus was also at >ICANN meeting though I had no coversation on this matter >with him. Izumi, the only discussion on the MAG list has been the email I forwarded from Markus. There has been no mention of Hyderabad. As soon as anything's mentioned I'll forward. Thanks, Adam >izumi > >2008/2/21, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>: > >I imagine now OK to forward such email. > > >> >>Dear colleagues, >> >>A synthesis paper that reflects the >>contributions we received is now available on >>our Web site: >><http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf>http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf >> >>You will note that we have changed the language >>for the announcement of the 2008 meeting in >>India. We have received many questions with >>regard to the date, as concerns were expressed >>regarding the clash of dates with the Islamic >>holiday Eid El-Adha. The Indian hosts are >>looking for alternatives, to accommodate our >>Islamic stakeholders. A solution is in the >>pipeline, but needs formal Ministerial approval >>before it can be announced. We were assured that >>they would be ready to do so shortly. The new >>language on our Web site reflects this evolving >>situation. >> >>Best regards >>Markus >> > > >Good to see the secretariat and hosts responding >quickly.  We'll hear news in good time, let's >continue seeing what can be done for the >consultation. > >Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >                        >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo >                                  Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                www.anr.org > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 01:01:41 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:01:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47bc5f2b.081b600a.46a6.fffffbdbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <47bc5f2b.081b600a.46a6.fffffbdbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on > > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG. > > > > BTW, I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to > > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda. > > McTim, > > I quote your email of yesterday > > "Ian's formulation seems to be the voice of reason here." > Actually what I wrote was "Ian's formualtion seems to be the voice of reason here" > Which was sent a few hours after Ian's email (enclosed)which replied to my > email asking for clear views of Lee and Bill on Meryem's formulation where > Ian's amendments to this formulation were also indicated. Ian in his email > goes on to explain his amendments (which obviously means he places them > within the original Meryem's formulation). > > So, when you say you agree with Ian's formulation, if your interventions are > meant to go into the exercise of constructing a caucus statement (which I > take them to be) they are and not mere expressions of your views as they come to you, > I am liable to take your agreement to Ian's amendment as also accepting the > larger text that is amended. Don't you think it is logical. Again, apologies if I was unclear, what i was reacting to was the upthread discussion regarding the last para of ian's text, specifically from Bill: " > > And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence > > "However, their current over-representation should be corrected." > > With > > "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil > society participation" and "I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was the one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, not about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing." > > I am trying to pull people's contributions together into a possible caucus > statement and it helps greatly if contributions are situated with respect to > the text on hand. yes, I think that there was/is a bit of cross threading going on here between "Reconstituting MAG" and "Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)", hence the confusion. I don't see Ian's 3rd para text (which is the part I referred to as the voice of reason) in the latest statement, which I have put here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfts4mt7_41dk47vs9t Perhaps I am mistaken, and this is not the latest? I can make it editable if that is helpful. > > Search 'technical communities' and you will find it (well, this fiction of > one monolithic one view tech community). To help you I can quote para 36 of > TA > > " We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and technical > communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to the > evolution, functioning and development of the Internet" > I see that now, however, i can't see any difference between the singular and the plural, as you seem to. But this is another rathole, which would be useful to avoid. /McTim > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:28 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > > > All, > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2008 5:20 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with Bill. > > > > > > > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > > > > members of the MAG rotate in. > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and > > Lee > > > agreed to it. > > > > Apologies if there was a misunderstanding, but i only agreed to this part: > > > . We also agree that International organizations having an important > > role in > > > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > > > participation. > > > > > > > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on > > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG. > > > > BTW, I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to > > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 01:28:04 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:28:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <20080220162405.CD301A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Dear Guru, On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Jeanette, > > In an earlier mail you say, quote > > > In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still have - > What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as two very > distinct sets at the same time - I don't see a distinction. > 1. people who have participated in the creation and running of the Internet > - Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and Wow, sandwiching my name in between these two giants is the biggest compliment anyone has ever given me, thanks very much, but it is wholly undeserved! > 2. a set of organizations that are part of the current IG. > > The second definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as > 'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the distinction > between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can someone > enlighten me on this basic issue please.. In the Internet technical communities in which I am most active, the governed are the "deciders" in other words, decisions are made by consensus of the community. I reject the notion that people who make policy can't be called CS, to me, it's a false premise to base a logical argument on, and it flies in the face of my personal experience If you want to take this up, let's do it AFTER we get the caucus statement done! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 21 02:28:47 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:28:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi On 2/20/08 11:17 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: >> Now you're just being unpleasant, why? > > As I just mentioned in answering Adam's mail, well, I can also ask > the same question. In any case, this was not my intention, and I > apologize if what I said about the analysis appeared unpleasant to you. Maybe I shouldn't have written a couple of familiar/teasing lines, sorry if they sounded off. Email just doesn't work for that. > At least we agree on what's at stake. But I may have missed your > tentative to address this. How should we have proceeded, according to > you? I think we do. My suggestion has been to post complete texts (preferably in a consistent, not tiny font) incorporating the piecemeal inputs and reflecting the non-consensus on the one point and then do a consensus call, it's Thursday. Cheers, Bill PS: BTW FWIW on your reply to Adam, >> 36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and >> technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in >> paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the >> Internet. >> >> "within those stakeholder groups" they are not "International >> organizations" it means (a) through (e). > > May I draw your attention to the difference between "technical > communities" and "the technical community"? And to the evolution in This is just an English thing, communities is plural because it refers to both academic and technical. Came from WGIG language, remember the discussion, there was no intention to draw the distinction you see. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 03:02:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:32:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221080235.5D68F678D2@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I think we do. My suggestion has been to post complete texts (preferably > in > a consistent, not tiny font) incorporating the piecemeal inputs and > reflecting the non-consensus on the one point and then do a consensus > call, > it's Thursday. > > Cheers, > > Bill A bit caught up, but that's what is on my mind. I will be able to do it within the next 3-4 hours. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:59 PM > To: Marzouki, Meryem; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > Hi > > On 2/20/08 11:17 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > > >> Now you're just being unpleasant, why? > > > > As I just mentioned in answering Adam's mail, well, I can also ask > > the same question. In any case, this was not my intention, and I > > apologize if what I said about the analysis appeared unpleasant to you. > > Maybe I shouldn't have written a couple of familiar/teasing lines, sorry > if > they sounded off. Email just doesn't work for that. > > > At least we agree on what's at stake. But I may have missed your > > tentative to address this. How should we have proceeded, according to > > you? > > I think we do. My suggestion has been to post complete texts (preferably > in > a consistent, not tiny font) incorporating the piecemeal inputs and > reflecting the non-consensus on the one point and then do a consensus > call, > it's Thursday. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > PS: BTW FWIW on your reply to Adam, > > >> 36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and > >> technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in > >> paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the > >> Internet. > >> > >> "within those stakeholder groups" they are not "International > >> organizations" it means (a) through (e). > > > > May I draw your attention to the difference between "technical > > communities" and "the technical community"? And to the evolution in > > This is just an English thing, communities is plural because it refers to > both academic and technical. Came from WGIG language, remember the > discussion, there was no intention to draw the distinction you see. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 05:28:05 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:58:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221102832.908E0E2530@smtp3.electricembers.net> Ronda Thanks for the contribution. Can you please formulate it as a clear topic and a short para of description, that covers a somewhat broader area, with some specific issues implicated in this broader area. And also mention the overall linkage to Internet governance and policy, preferably at the global levels, that will make it a good issue for a main session (many members have suggested such qualities for main session themes). This broad theme (still sufficiently focused) implicating a set of public policy issues helps build a structure of a main session plus workshops arranged around it. Personally I will like you to think of replacing the term 'netizens' because it may look like giving too much of a techie spin to the theme (I know you do not mean it like that). Issues of participation and democracy in Internet age may be emphasized. But as state also bring out clear issue as related to IG. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronda Hauben [mailto:ronda.netizen at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:47 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: ronda hauben > Subject: Re: [governance] main themes > > I suggest you try to include a theme on netizens - on the Internet as > a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance > issues. > > Somehow this all seems to get left out. > > The original vision of Licklider was that citizens would participate > in determining what was needed for technological development and in > pressuring government to respond to their needs. > > Netizens is the conceptualization that carries this notion forward now > that there is an Internet. > > I gave a talk about this at the side event to the Tunis WSIS. I can > give the url if people are interested. > > with best wishes > > Ronda > > On 2/19/08, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am enclosing my original email, pl see the text of the proposed > statement > > as well as suggested themes. > > > > > > > > (full email dt 16th Feb below) > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > > > > > > > (Starts) > > > > > > > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that the > > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with > CIRs > > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF > meetings in > > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in > > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious > > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global > public > > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of the > > IGF. > > > > > > > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, > > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall > > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the plenaries > > should address specific public policy issues that are considered most > > important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops > > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should > feed > > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the > plenaries > > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs > should > > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > > > > > > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > > > > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what > is > > the status of it > > > > > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for global > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > stakeholders > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > such > > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present > seems > > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. > > > > > > > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > > > > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and some > text > > > > > > > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the list > > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's submission) > > > > > > > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > > > > > > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the IGF' > > > > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, but we > may > > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to discuss > it. > > > > > > > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more > specific > > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and more > > specific issues. > > > > > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to > get > > through the whole process. > > > > > > > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to quote > the > > Swiss gov's contribution. > > > > > > > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF > should > > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open and > free > > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the > discussions > > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > > > > > > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a meeting > of a > > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > > > > > > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when > governments > > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being too > > cautious etc... > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:49 AM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to finalize some themes for main sessions for Delhi. > > > > > > > > > > The following open text was suggested (see email below), in reply to > which > > > > > Guru (email enclosed) and Thomas Lowenhaupt (email enclosed) have > > > > > suggested > > > > > themes. We have had no discussion on them, and suggesting the right > themes > > > > > is I think the most important issue. IGF comes only once in a year, > and we > > > > > must suggest themes now if we are ever going to because I suspect > these > > > > > things will be crystallized early this time. > > > > > > > > > > Thomas, may I suggest that you make the theme a little broader, which > > > > > increases its chance of acceptance as a main session theme. We expect > a > > > > > number of workshops connected to the main session and the main theme > > > > > should > > > > > be able to support a sufficiently wide range of topics (but yes, with > a > > > > > good > > > > > overall focus as well). > > > > > > > > > > So instead of > > > > > > > > > > "Towards the Creation of Internet Resources that Facilitate > Sustainable > > > > > Global Cities" > > > > > > > > > > May be we can say > > > > > > > > > > 'Internet Governance for Sustainable communities' or something like > that.. > > > > > the issue of IR's is covered in IG, but allows other aspects of IG > also to > > > > > be taken up, and communities is a broader term which will include > more > > > > > than > > > > > just urban units... > > > > > > > > > > Please also write a concise one para which describes the theme - a > > > > > relatively broad sweep within a focused subject, and some public > policy > > > > > connections perhaps. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Bill, will you like to contribute text on 'WSIS principles'... and / > or > > > > > dev > > > > > agenda. > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:14 AM > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes > > > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am enclosing the set of themes that the caucus recommended for > Rio. Of > > > > > > them the CIRs theme was accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposed statement of substantive themes > > > > > > > > > > > > (Starts) > > > > > > > > > > > > As suggested in our earlier statement, CS IGC is of the opinion that > the > > > > > > four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security > (with > > > > > CIRs > > > > > > added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF > > > > > meetings > > > > > > in > > > > > > its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings > in > > > > > > Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the > serious > > > > > > business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global > > > > > public > > > > > > policy making in the Internet arena, which is the primary mandate of > the > > > > > > IGF. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, > openness, > > > > > > diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for > overall > > > > > > organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the > plenaries > > > > > > should address specific public policy issues that are considered > most > > > > > > important in the current global context. A series of thematic > workshops > > > > > > should also be organized around these plenaries, whose output should > > > > > feed > > > > > > into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the > > > > > > plenaries > > > > > > and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These > WGs > > > > > > should > > > > > > also synthesize some outcome documents for each plenary subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > For Delhi, we suggest the following substantive themes. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and > what > > > > > is > > > > > > the status of it > > > > > > > > > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks about the need for enhanced cooperation for > global > > > > > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly > is > > > > > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced > > > > > > cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > > > > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > > > > > stakeholders > > > > > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible > that > > > > > > such > > > > > > an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at > present > > > > > > seems > > > > > > to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of > confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > (3-4 more themes can be added here) > > > > > > > > > > > > (ends) > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill has suggested a theme - 'assessing implementation of the WSIS > > > > > > principles' in IG institutions. He may suggest a final title, and > some > > > > > > text > > > > > > > > > > > > We can pick up the Development Agenda in IG theme as well from the > list > > > > > > (especially since there is support form Swiss gov, and APC's > submission) > > > > > > > > > > > > One of us may want to re-write a short description for this theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can also again ask for plenary on 'The Role and Mandate of the > IGF' > > > > > > though they may say this is best discussed at open consultations, > but we > > > > > > may > > > > > > need a wider constituency that comes to the annual meetings to > discuss > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have to ask for CIR plenary, we will need to develop a more > > > > > specific > > > > > > topic, since we are proposing plenary discussions on clearer and > more > > > > > > specific issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a > week to > > > > > > get > > > > > > through the whole process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, while we are proposing substantive themes, I will like to > quote > > > > > the > > > > > > Swiss gov's contribution. > > > > > > > > > > > > " We also think that, generally speaking, the discussions in the IGF > > > > > > should > > > > > > not try to avoid critical issues, but they should be informal, open > and > > > > > > free > > > > > > and should allow for divergence of views. The atmosphere of the > > > > > > discussions > > > > > > should be respectful but not too "nice" and "cosy"." > > > > > > > > > > > > And at another place " We would not like the IGF to turn into a > meeting > > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > group of friends that discuss among themselves ..." > > > > > > > > > > > > I am bit worried about the reputation of the CS here :), when > > > > > governments > > > > > > are speaking more like normally CS speaks, and CS may be found being > too > > > > > > cautious etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > -- > Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 05:31:32 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:31:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: 2008/2/20 Ian Peter : > > > > > Izumi, you may find this paper interesting in this respect > > > > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf > > > > Its from Randy Bush, very much an IETF stalwart and true believer ?? Perhaps you should read some of his posts on IETF/netops lists to see if the above is still the case ;-) – there is > a lot more elsewhere on this problem and various specific aspects of it, but > this is a good starting point. > > > > Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war > in Iraq - "no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part > started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no > support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] > victory will be next month" – > > > > To which I would add acute embarrassment at the failure, which leads to > denial and coverups and all sorts of attempts to wish the problem will go > away - rather than admitting failure, and beginning a serious attempt at a > remedy. There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 05:44:11 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:44:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. Can anyone explain why those who designed IPV6 did not think about the transition path and the necessary interoperability between both protocols ? Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 05:49:29 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:49:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <309d01c87477$764e6ac0$8b00a8c0@IAN> McTim stated correctly >the 2 protocols were never designed to be "interoperable". Which means that the only sensible deployment plan would be a simultaneous switchover (something that was done in the early 1980s I believe after which everyone said correctly "never again") A rolling deployment over several years or decades, which is what is being planned, accompanied by protocols never designed to be interoperable? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 21 February 2008 21:32 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing 2008/2/20 Ian Peter : > > > > > Izumi, you may find this paper interesting in this respect > > > > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf > > > > Its from Randy Bush, very much an IETF stalwart and true believer ?? Perhaps you should read some of his posts on IETF/netops lists to see if the above is still the case ;-) – there is > a lot more elsewhere on this problem and various specific aspects of it, but > this is a good starting point. > > > > Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war > in Iraq - "no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part > started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no > support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] > victory will be next month" – > > > > To which I would add acute embarrassment at the failure, which leads to > denial and coverups and all sorts of attempts to wish the problem will go > away - rather than admitting failure, and beginning a serious attempt at a > remedy. There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008 10:26 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008 10:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 06:01:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:31:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221110138.0EB78A6C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> Below is the text for the proposed caucus statement on themes for IGF Delhi. As with other statements, we may read out a shorter version of the statement as per time available, but good for the caucus to adopt a full length statement. (starts) As suggested in our earlier statement (depending on which statement goes first), CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is a primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the main sessions should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these main sessions, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the main sessions and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each main theme. For Delhi, we suggest the following main session themes. 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. 2. 'Network Neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers of the Internet' Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. 3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities" (Thomas's current formulation speaks only about CIRs and sustainable communities. I am encouraging him to develop a broader theme of connecting the issue of sustainable communities to IG in all layers - logical, application, content and software. CIRs implicated in logical layers can be one set of issues developed through a thematic workshop and fed into the proposed main session. Issues of local connectivity solutions (and a global policy environment encouraging it), local content, community appropriation of technologies, etc could also be connected to 'sustainable communities'. More suggestions are welcome here)) 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss OfCom's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss OfCom's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. 6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues. (Ronda's text is awaited. Suggestions welcome, as for other categories.) (ends) -------------- 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 Feb 21 06:14:08 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > > > On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be > "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 > hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. > > Can anyone explain why those who designed IPV6 did not think about the > transition path and the necessary interoperability between both protocols ? They did think about the transition path: http://nislab.bu.edu/sc546/sc441Spring2003/ipv6/transition.htm in order to "Deploy more recent technologies" listed here: http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/ IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence, lack of backwards compatibility. Don't worry, the sky is not falling, the Internet will not come crashing to a halt, as some are suggesting. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 06:11:29 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:41:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: <20080221110138.0EB78A6C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080221111153.7FD01A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Bill Would it not be better to use 'Swiss gov' instead of Swiss OfCom in the theme proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] main themes Below is the text for the proposed caucus statement on themes for IGF Delhi. As with other statements, we may read out a shorter version of the statement as per time available, but good for the caucus to adopt a full length statement. (starts) As suggested in our earlier statement (depending on which statement goes first), CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is a primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the main sessions should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these main sessions, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the main sessions and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each main theme. For Delhi, we suggest the following main session themes. 1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. 2. 'Network Neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers of the Internet' Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. 3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities" (Thomas's current formulation speaks only about CIRs and sustainable communities. I am encouraging him to develop a broader theme of connecting the issue of sustainable communities to IG in all layers - logical, application, content and software. CIRs implicated in logical layers can be one set of issues developed through a thematic workshop and fed into the proposed main session. Issues of local connectivity solutions (and a global policy environment encouraging it), local content, community appropriation of technologies, etc could also be connected to 'sustainable communities'. More suggestions are welcome here)) 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss OfCom's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss OfCom's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. 6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues. (Ronda's text is awaited. Suggestions welcome, as for other categories.) (ends) -------------- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 06:25:49 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:25:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0802210325v2849e620i321f462f6ec62f24@mail.gmail.com> Hi, On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence, lack of backwards compatibility. But Randy Bush's slides say : "Incompatibility could have been avoided, e.g. if IPv6 had variable length addressing, IPv4 could have become the 32 bit variant" Must confess I'm not cognisant enough. Could you explain a bit further ? Best Bertrand On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > > > There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be > > "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 > > hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. > > > > Can anyone explain why those who designed IPV6 did not think about the > > transition path and the necessary interoperability between both > protocols ? > > They did think about the transition path: > > http://nislab.bu.edu/sc546/sc441Spring2003/ipv6/transition.htm > > in order to "Deploy more recent technologies" listed here: > > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/ > > IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence, > lack of backwards compatibility. > > Don't worry, the sky is not falling, the Internet will not come > crashing to a halt, as some are suggesting. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From db at dannybutt.net Thu Feb 21 06:32:31 2008 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:32:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> >> Maybe we could talk about things >> people might agree on, as I suggested last week? IGF format, main >> sessions, >> that sort of thing? Perhaps more than anything in my time on this list (I am in full agreement with Meryem on the descriptor), Bill's brief paragraph summarises most of the procedural and governance issues that I have felt face the list as a putative space to air the concerns of those working on IG issues within a rights and justice framework. When you have a self-selected group, there is nothing "democratic" about focussing on areas of agreement. On the contrary, this is the logic of building support for a particular agenda by downplaying alternative views. For example, when a group wants to overturn a particular piece of legislation, there is always a reason to suppress dissent in the name of an overarching objective that everyone agrees on. You need to build numbers and support for a position. The problem is that there is no clearly-shared goal among the list - instead it attempts to speak for an incredibly diverse range of stakeholders. The various government and private sector bodies are not stupid in questioning - the issue of legitimacy here is paramount. Governments represent legislative authority over the territories (and airspace) where the internet is located; the private sector represents a large proportion of the financial investment that allows it to exist. There is no question of legitimacy there, it is clear what both bring to the table. But they may very obviously ask: how exactly does IGC represent these other interests? If dissent is visible and suppressed, we can be sure that this will be noted and that, for certain observers, the list will be seen less as a viable conduit for these other interests; and more as a vehicle for the interests of those who have the capability and resources to speak "not on behalf of anyone, in an individual capacity" at the various international meetings around the world. I would not underestimate the potential downsides of this perception for not only the Internet, whatever that is, but the concept of civil society as a whole. From my point of view, the only way to combat this is to make IGC a resolutely diverse and growing house, which (given the constraints of the personal air-time constraints of the mailing list format) will entail paying active attention to points of view which have not yet been represented in IGC discourse, rather than assuming that our own highly privileged consensus can occupy any kind of moral high ground in the world of international policy. Cheers, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 21/02/2008, at 11:17 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Maybe we could talk about things >> people might agree on, as I suggested last week? IGF format, main >> sessions, >> that sort of thing? > > yes, yes, I already know: "CS needs better representation", full > stop. etc. For sure, we might agree on this. Far beyond this caucus. > I'm wondering (actually since right after WSIS, you may get back to > the archives), why we go on calling this list a 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 Thu Feb 21 06:35:44 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:05:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221113609.1CD4FA6CB9@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Agree with the statement, and particularly with > Mereym's comment that discussions must be related > to "global Internet governance". It's in the > statement but should be emphasized (move it up.) This statement is more about the format, and there is another one about thematic focus, where we do emphasize the IG focus part. To quote from the 'main themes' draft, "the main sessions should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context". Even in the IGF format draft we say in para 2 dealing with 'town hall' aspect - " providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders". And ten under the open workshops we restate very pointedly as point 2. I think we are making the point repeatedly and clearly. > > I would add that the New Delhi IGF marks the > halfway point in the IGF's mandate. Essential the > meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate > (main sessions and workshops as the statement > suggests.) Stock taking and the way forward could > then be used as a mid-term review where we begin > considering whether the IGF should continue after > 2010, under what conditions (if any etc) (TA para > 76). OK > > About the multi-stakeholder organization of > workshops -- always intended to be a principle > not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society > seems to have followed the principle better than > most, I don't think we need to worry too much. I > would delete from "the later criterion..." to the > end of the paragraph. I think over emphasizing > this might have a negative effect on CS. That comes for the experience of many CS guys trying to hold workshops and not being able to get internet organization, private sector, and govs to partner... It happened with IGC's own workshop, with workshops ITfC tried to organize, and, I understand, even with IGP.... The 'later criterion....' part addresses this real felt problem. > > There was still too much duplication of subjects > of workshops in Rio. If there were more time to > organize things then all proposing workshops > could be asked to work with others proposing > similar themes to refine and merge their > proposals (perhaps in working groups?) I like to > see something like this in the caucus statement, > and that an initial call for workshop proposals > should be made shortly after the February > consultation. I will add about the call after feb consultation. I prefer more work on merging done in temr sof thematic workshop rather the open ones...ill strengthen this point. > > About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the > IGF try innovative means of discussion rather > than referring to speed dialogue specifically. I myself am not sure about speed dialogue process in a large main session setting. Jeremy, pl comment on this. > > About participation. For what it's worth, more > CS participants in Athens and Rio than other > stakeholder groups. "lopsided" in the opening > sentence reads oddly (to me). CS category is not the only one we spek about. It was lopsided in terms of representation form developing countries. This is recognized in official IGF docs, and I think a valid point to make. But I can remove it and start it as suggested by you below. Parminder Suggest deleting > that sentence, and the paragraph could begin with > > It is important to improve the participation of > currently excluded and under represented groups > in both the IGF's public consultations and the > annual meetings. (and keep the rest.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >I am changing the subject to ŒIGF Delhi format¹. > >Two other statements are being considered under > >the head Œmain themes¹ and Œreconstituting MAG¹ > > > >Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on > >the issue of Delhi IGF format. > > > >I think there is a non-ending debate between > >those who want to improve IGF¹s effectiveness in > >giving public policy directions, and those who > >want to encourage it as an open space for > >dialogue. Arguments given by either side are > >heard by the other as reducing IGFs > >effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. > >So, I though it is best to divide IGF¹s mandate, > >functions and needed activities in two parts ­ > >accepting the important of both, and making them > >(to attempting to make them) mutually > >non-threatening. > > > >I have used the open town hall meeting as the > >descriptive term for the open policy dialogue > >function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai often > >uses it now a daysŠ and I think it fits well. > >The other aspect is titled as ŒIGF as Providing > >Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet¹. > > > >Parminder > > > >PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give > >comments (on all three statements) and integrate > >them into possible final drafts for seeking > >rough consensus. I had earlier put these points > >out ­ both in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 > >specific points - for this statement, but I > >understand it is difficult to keep track to all > >this activity on the list along with our other > >works. But can you all please make up in the > >next two days. Thanks. > > > >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input for the format for IGF, > Delhi > >With two years of experience behind us, it is a > >good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling > >its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements > >as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. > >We are of the opinion that the functions that > >IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two > >broad categories: One is of providing an open > >space for discussing any and all public policy > >issues regarding the Internet for all > >stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging > >a closer interactions between stakeholder and > >groups who Œdo not often Œtalk¹ to each other¹. > >The second set of mandates and functions can be > >clubbed in the category of providing some > >relatively clear directions and possibilities in > >the area of global public policy, and for this > >purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, > >possibilities, interactions etc in the global > >institutional framework in this area. > >The structure of the IGF meeting should be > >adequate to meet both these purposes. The first > >purpose listed above is largely being achieved, > >and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic > >of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and > >voice one¹s opinion and concerns. However, the > >requirements for the purpose two listed above ­ > >that of some clear contribution to the global > >public policy arena - may need us to explore > >some structural improvements for the next IGF > >meeting, without taking away its open town hall > >meeting character. > >IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting > >To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we > >mentioned, we think we are making good progress. > >We are of the view that we should allow as many > >open workshops as possible, subject only to the > >limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should > >encourage connected events on the sidelines of > >the IGF as well, some of which were held around > >IGF, Rio. > >The process of selection of open workshops > >should, inter alia, involve the criteria of > >(1) Sponsor¹s readiness to structure the > >workshops as a space of open dialogue and not > >just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder > >criteria should be seen more in terms of the > >expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite > >different stakeholders, and those with different > >points of views, to participate as panelists > >rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. > >The later criterion leads to the possibility of > >some stakeholders, especially those with a > >relatively tightly organized and relatively > >monolithic structure and policy/ political > >approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety > >sought should be more in terms of different > >points of views, rather than just different > >stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a > >panel of different stakeholders with a narrow > >range of views on a particular subject. > >(2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as > >possible, within IGF¹s broad mandate of dealing > >with specifically IG issue, that are global, and > >have some relation to public policy arena. > >Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF > >meeting may also be indicated. > >IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet > > > >There is a general impression that more can be > >done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate > >of providing directions to global public policy > >on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its > >TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal > >spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. > >There was a general impression among those who > >attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main > >sessions could be made more compelling and > >productive. We did see attendance at these > >sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and > >within Rio, from day one onwards. > > > >We think that the main sessions should be > >focused on specific issues concerning the > >conduct of Internet governance per se, rather > >than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to > >the Internet environment generally. These > >specific issues should be framed, and prepared > >for, well in advance. We are separately > >suggesting a couple of such specific issues that > >can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. > > > >The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > > > >(1) Having a couple of thematic workshops > >connected with, and feeding into, each of the > >main sessions. There should be a limited number > >of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous > >effort to merge proposals for such workshops in > >a manner that preserves diversities of > >geo-politics, special interests and different > >viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to > >increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. > > > >(2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > > > >(3) Using Working Groups to intensively > >prepare for each of these sessions, and the > >connected workshops. These working groups should > >also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents > >on each theme, taking from the discussions at > >the main sessions and the connected workshops. > >These working groups could consist of members of > >the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. > > > >Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great > >potential to increase the effectiveness of the > >IGF. There should be greater clarity on the > >formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF > >structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the > >chosen subject for a main session should be > >involved in the preparations for the session. > >They must also be able to report back on their > >activities in such a main session. > > > >(Text of speed dialogue or similar process > >suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next > >partŠ..) > > > >Participation at the IGF > > > >It has often been noted that participation in > >the IGF is very lopsided. In order to build the > >legitimacy of the IGF, it is important to > >improve the participation of currently excluded > >groups. Adequate financial support should be > >provided to potential participants from > >developing and least developed countries. There > >is also a lot of scope for improving > >participation through online means, which should > >be fully explored. However this improvement of > >online participation cannot fill in for greater > >face to face participation of currently > >under-represented groups. > > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.odt ( / ) > (0050DA21) > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.doc (WDBN/«IC») > (0050DA22) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 06:38:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:08:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221113849.9F9EAA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> I know all this is a bit confusing but the sentence you quote is for the 'main themes' draft and not the IGF delhi format draft. But you can formulate the sentence and I will put it in the main themes draft. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:34 PM > To: Peake, Adam; Governance; Singh, Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF delhi format > Importance: High > > Agree. Per previous, this should be positioned as an overarching > principle > relevant to all IGF activities and should placed up front rather than > buried > in relation only to workshops. I'd suggest in the second paragraph, as a > lead in to your sentence, "the plenaries [again, should call these main > sessions] should address specific public policy issues that are considered > most important in the current global context," which flows from the > principle. > > BD > > On 2/20/08 12:57 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Agree with the statement, and particularly with > > Mereym's comment that discussions must be related > > to "global Internet governance". It's in the > > statement but should be emphasized (move it up.) > > > > I would add that the New Delhi IGF marks the > > halfway point in the IGF's mandate. Essential the > > meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate > > (main sessions and workshops as the statement > > suggests.) Stock taking and the way forward could > > then be used as a mid-term review where we begin > > considering whether the IGF should continue after > > 2010, under what conditions (if any etc) (TA para > > 76). > > > > About the multi-stakeholder organization of > > workshops -- always intended to be a principle > > not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society > > seems to have followed the principle better than > > most, I don't think we need to worry too much. I > > would delete from "the later criterion..." to the > > end of the paragraph. I think over emphasizing > > this might have a negative effect on CS. > > > > There was still too much duplication of subjects > > of workshops in Rio. If there were more time to > > organize things then all proposing workshops > > could be asked to work with others proposing > > similar themes to refine and merge their > > proposals (perhaps in working groups?) I like to > > see something like this in the caucus statement, > > and that an initial call for workshop proposals > > should be made shortly after the February > > consultation. > > > > About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the > > IGF try innovative means of discussion rather > > than referring to speed dialogue specifically. > > > > About participation. For what it's worth, more > > CS participants in Athens and Rio than other > > stakeholder groups. "lopsided" in the opening > > sentence reads oddly (to me). Suggest deleting > > that sentence, and the paragraph could begin with > > > > It is important to improve the participation of > > currently excluded and under represented groups > > in both the IGF's public consultations and the > > annual meetings. (and keep the rest.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> I am changing the subject to ŒIGF Delhi format¹. > >> Two other statements are being considered under > >> the head Œmain themes¹ and Œreconstituting MAG¹ > >> > >> Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on > >> the issue of Delhi IGF format. > >> > >> I think there is a non-ending debate between > >> those who want to improve IGF¹s effectiveness in > >> giving public policy directions, and those who > >> want to encourage it as an open space for > >> dialogue. Arguments given by either side are > >> heard by the other as reducing IGFs > >> effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. > >> So, I though it is best to divide IGF¹s mandate, > >> functions and needed activities in two parts ­ > >> accepting the important of both, and making them > >> (to attempting to make them) mutually > >> non-threatening. > >> > >> I have used the open town hall meeting as the > >> descriptive term for the open policy dialogue > >> function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai often > >> uses it now a daysŠ and I think it fits well. > >> The other aspect is titled as ŒIGF as Providing > >> Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet¹. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give > >> comments (on all three statements) and integrate > >> them into possible final drafts for seeking > >> rough consensus. I had earlier put these points > >> out ­ both in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 > >> specific points - for this statement, but I > >> understand it is difficult to keep track to all > >> this activity on the list along with our other > >> works. But can you all please make up in the > >> next two days. Thanks. > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input for the format for > IGF, > >> Delhi > >> With two years of experience behind us, it is a > >> good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling > >> its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements > >> as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. > >> We are of the opinion that the functions that > >> IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two > >> broad categories: One is of providing an open > >> space for discussing any and all public policy > >> issues regarding the Internet for all > >> stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging > >> a closer interactions between stakeholder and > >> groups who Œdo not often Œtalk¹ to each other¹. > >> The second set of mandates and functions can be > >> clubbed in the category of providing some > >> relatively clear directions and possibilities in > >> the area of global public policy, and for this > >> purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, > >> possibilities, interactions etc in the global > >> institutional framework in this area. > >> The structure of the IGF meeting should be > >> adequate to meet both these purposes. The first > >> purpose listed above is largely being achieved, > >> and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic > >> of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and > >> voice one¹s opinion and concerns. However, the > >> requirements for the purpose two listed above ­ > >> that of some clear contribution to the global > >> public policy arena - may need us to explore > >> some structural improvements for the next IGF > >> meeting, without taking away its open town hall > >> meeting character. > >> IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting > >> To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we > >> mentioned, we think we are making good progress. > >> We are of the view that we should allow as many > >> open workshops as possible, subject only to the > >> limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should > >> encourage connected events on the sidelines of > >> the IGF as well, some of which were held around > >> IGF, Rio. > >> The process of selection of open workshops > >> should, inter alia, involve the criteria of > >> (1) Sponsor¹s readiness to structure the > >> workshops as a space of open dialogue and not > >> just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder > >> criteria should be seen more in terms of the > >> expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite > >> different stakeholders, and those with different > >> points of views, to participate as panelists > >> rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. > >> The later criterion leads to the possibility of > >> some stakeholders, especially those with a > >> relatively tightly organized and relatively > >> monolithic structure and policy/ political > >> approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety > >> sought should be more in terms of different > >> points of views, rather than just different > >> stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a > >> panel of different stakeholders with a narrow > >> range of views on a particular subject. > >> (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as > >> possible, within IGF¹s broad mandate of dealing > >> with specifically IG issue, that are global, and > >> have some relation to public policy arena. > >> Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF > >> meeting may also be indicated. > >> IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet > >> > >> There is a general impression that more can be > >> done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate > >> of providing directions to global public policy > >> on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its > >> TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal > >> spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. > >> There was a general impression among those who > >> attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main > >> sessions could be made more compelling and > >> productive. We did see attendance at these > >> sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and > >> within Rio, from day one onwards. > >> > >> We think that the main sessions should be > >> focused on specific issues concerning the > >> conduct of Internet governance per se, rather > >> than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to > >> the Internet environment generally. These > >> specific issues should be framed, and prepared > >> for, well in advance. We are separately > >> suggesting a couple of such specific issues that > >> can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. > >> > >> The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > >> > >> (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops > >> connected with, and feeding into, each of the > >> main sessions. There should be a limited number > >> of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous > >> effort to merge proposals for such workshops in > >> a manner that preserves diversities of > >> geo-politics, special interests and different > >> viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to > >> increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. > >> > >> (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > >> > >> (3) Using Working Groups to intensively > >> prepare for each of these sessions, and the > >> connected workshops. These working groups should > >> also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents > >> on each theme, taking from the discussions at > >> the main sessions and the connected workshops. > >> These working groups could consist of members of > >> the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. > >> > >> Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great > >> potential to increase the effectiveness of the > >> IGF. There should be greater clarity on the > >> formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF > >> structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the > >> chosen subject for a main session should be > >> involved in the preparations for the session. > >> They must also be able to report back on their > >> activities in such a main session. > >> > >> (Text of speed dialogue or similar process > >> suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next > >> partŠ..) > >> > >> Participation at the IGF > >> > >> It has often been noted that participation in > >> the IGF is very lopsided. In order to build the > >> legitimacy of the IGF, it is important to > >> improve the participation of currently excluded > >> groups. Adequate financial support should be > >> provided to potential participants from > >> developing and least developed countries. There > >> is also a lot of scope for improving > >> participation through online means, which should > >> be fully explored. However this improvement of > >> online participation cannot fill in for greater > >> face to face participation of currently > >> under-represented groups. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.odt ( / ) > >> (0050DA21) > >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.doc (WDBN/«IC») > >> (0050DA22) > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 06:49:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:19:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> The draft on IGF Delhi format as it stands. (pl point out if any suggestions are not included) Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input for the format for IGF, Delhi With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the global public policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. It is therefore essential that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate. In fact the 'stock taking and the way forward' session at Delhi could then be used as a mid-term review of the IGF process, considering that the IGF process is supposed to be completely reviewed at the end of a five year period. IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, Rio. The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia, involve the criteria of (1) Sponsor's readiness to structure the workshops as a space of open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and those with different points of views, to participate as panelists rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a particular subject. (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF's broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within Rio, from day one onwards. We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must also be able to report back on their activities in such a main session. (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next part. Jeremy, pl respond to Adam's observation...) Participation at the IGF It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face participation of currently under-represented groups. Thanks. -------------- 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 Thu Feb 21 06:57:15 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:57:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] main themes In-Reply-To: <20080221111153.7FD01A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Bill > Would it not be better to use ŒSwiss gov¹ instead of Swiss OfCom in the theme proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone. Parminder --------- Good point. Because it was OfCom specifically that offered to co-sponsor the DA workshop in Rio (just like other ministries that have done so in their own names for other workshops) and the new statement is signed by OfCom I didn¹t differentiate, but in fact the statement is labeled ³Swiss Comments² so presumably it¹s ok to attribute it to the Swiss government generally. Also, in rushing out a text, I failed to note also the co-sponsorship of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; since the Brazilian government has publicly supported the DA idea (not just in Rio, but also in responding to a talk I gave at an UNCTAD meeting in Geneva) it would be dumb not to flag their support and invite their comment on the proposal. So how about we consider the revised texts below. Corrected a typo as well. BD > 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors > in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications, the Brazilian > Internet Steering Committee, and partners from other stakeholder groups on, > ³Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.² The workshop > considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and > action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet > governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed > strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, > we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session > at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many > participants there. We also support the Swiss proposal to consider > establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop > recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > > 5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, on > an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance > processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on > how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus > has consistently programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the > Swiss statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as > a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start > that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress > in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive > participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across > Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning > good or best practices. -------------- 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 Feb 21 07:04:42 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:04:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0802210325v2849e620i321f462f6ec62f24@mail.gmail.com> References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0802210325v2849e620i321f462f6ec62f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence, > lack of backwards compatibility. > > But Randy Bush's slides say : > > > "Incompatibility could have been avoided, e.g. if IPv6 had variable length > addressing, IPv4 could have become the 32 bit variant" IPv6 DOES have variable length in the architecture. RFC 2374 says: "The specific type of an IPv6 address is indicated by the leading bits in the address. The variable-length field comprising these leading bits is called the Format Prefix (FP)." and: "3.1 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Structure The aggregatable global unicast address format is as follows: | 3| 13 | 8 | 24 | 16 | 64 bits | +--+-----+---+--------+--------+--------------------------------+ |FP| TLA |RES| NLA | SLA | Interface ID | | | ID | | ID | ID | | +--+-----+---+--------+--------+--------------------------------+" The 3 bits above "FP" on the left side of the 128 bits is "Format Prefix" I think what Randy is referring to is that we are only using Unicast addresses currently (1/8 of the total IPv6 address space). The theory being that if we stuff up, and have to start over, we will have 7/8ths of the possible 3.4×1038 addresses. Maybe he means RFC2526, Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses (Proposed Standard) You'll have to ask him what he means tho, as I can't be sure. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > Must confess I'm not cognisant enough. Could you explain a bit further ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > > On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/21/08, McTim wrote: > > > > > > There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be > > > "interoperable". There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4 > > > hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa. > > > > > > Can anyone explain why those who designed IPV6 did not think about the > > > transition path and the necessary interoperability between both > protocols ? > > > > They did think about the transition path: > > > > http://nislab.bu.edu/sc546/sc441Spring2003/ipv6/transition.htm > > > > in order to "Deploy more recent technologies" listed here: > > > > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/ > > > > IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence, > > lack of backwards compatibility. > > > > Don't worry, the sky is not falling, the Internet will not come > > crashing to a halt, as some are suggesting. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 07:16:14 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:46:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080220192119.363F9A6C8C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists - one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. Special Advisors and Chair * The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to incorporate changes like - removing the number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like "We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists - one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate." Now on this long discussion on the 'tech community' issue. There is enough opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of how MAG's membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and views in favor of saying something simply like - CS is under-represented and this should be corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and construct appropriate language, but basically this is the point) Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of the statement, the MAG membership part and the 'MAG role and structure' part, and in addition some other specific issues. The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further comments may also be given. Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not received consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now comes up is (about the second substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its 'clarity' as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus's 07 statements for some clarity on these issues. And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think self-selection will require the secretariat to recognize some parameters of what or who can go into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all categories, and some definition of what constitutes these categories. Should we then ask only for self selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included and who cant, and on what grounds etc) In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) found no negative comment, but still not enough comments. Parminder (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. Membership of the MAG * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. * As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. * All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special Advisors and Chair * The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. * (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 07:31:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:01:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080221123135.5F93C67824@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All We have 4 full days in which to seek closure on a set of possible caucus statements. There are three under consideration. On 'Reconstituting MAG' , 'Main Themes' and 'IGF Delhi Format'. We have a little more than 48 hours for comments, and perhaps a little back and forth. On Friday, 9 PM GMT, we will see if there is sufficient ground for proposing statements for rough consensus, and if so post statements seeking rough consensus. Reponses to rough consensus process can be made within 48 hours of this posting. On Sunday night we will decide if rough consensus is obtained. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 21 08:12:04 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:12:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Hi, > >Per Parminder¹s request, I¹ve drafted some >language on two possible main session topics. > In both cases, I took note of the Swiss >statement.  One could argue either way the >politics of doing that, but ultimately I thought >it¹s sensible to clearly make the linkage so the >proposals are framed in subsequent discussion as >a MS intervention rather than just some CS >thing.  If OfCom¹s not shy about supporting our >proposals, why should we be shy about doing the >same?  Also, on the WSIS principles piece, I >suggest narrowing the focus this time in a way >that makes the issues and politics more >manageable.  Several years of experience raising >this with IGF leadership and at ITU and OECD >meetings, etc. lead me to believe that the >camel¹s nose would be more less unwelcome in the >tent if it looks like transparency and inclusion >rather than ³everything should be multilateral² >or ³let¹s rehash WSIS² etc. > >Thoughts, suggestions, corrections of my false >consciousness and running dog lackey ways, etc? > >BTW re: one other point raised prior, I would >suggest that we not propose a main session on >the IGF mandate, but rather hold off for another >IGC workshop instead---second in a branded >series, the first having gone well and not led >the sky to fall etc.  I can¹t imagine key >players welcoming the possibility of a main >session hullabaloo on that. I think we should recommend including discussion of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the way forward" session and some associated workshops. Important we start looking at what's been achieved and to prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. There could be a call for workshops on topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not the subject of other sessions) and the second in the "branded" series. Adam >Cheers, > >Bill > > >A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > >Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda >and its mandate for the IGF.  Development also >was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the >Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured >a main session that devoted significant, focused >attention to the linkages between Internet >governance mechanisms and development.  However, >at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society >actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of >Communications and other partners from all >stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development >Agenda for Internet Governance.²  The workshop >considered the options for establishing a >holistic program of analysis and action that >would help mainstream development considerations >into Internet governance decision making >processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed >strong interest in further work on the topic >being pursued in the IGF.  Hence, we believe the >Development Agenda concept should be taken up in >a main session at New Delhi, and that this would >be of keen interest to a great many participants >there.  We also support the Swiss OfCom¹s >proposal to consider establishing a >multi-stakeholder Working Group that could >develop recommendations to the IGF on a >development agenda. > > >Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > >The WSIS principles hold that Internet >governance processes ³should be multilateral, >transparent and democratic, with the full >involvement of governments, the private sector, >civil society and international organizations.² >Governments invoked these principles throughout >the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda >mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, on an >ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles >in Internet Governance processes.² > Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key >element of its mandate.  The Internet Governance >Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the >Swiss OfCom¹s statement that implementation of >the WSIS principles should be added as a >cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF >discussions.  To help kick-start that >cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a >main session in New Delhi concentrate on two >WSIS principles of general applicability for >which progress in implementation can be most >readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive >participation.  The session could consider >patterns of practice across Internet governance >mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons >concerning good or best practices. > > >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake   >Director, Project on the Information >  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >Graduate Institute of International and >  Development Studies >Geneva, Switzerland >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >*********************************************************** > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 21 08:11:00 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:11:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. I've edited and where important noted the new text. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) [start]  * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] Special Advisors and Chair * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It is something we should recommended in the other contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. END Hope the suggested changes are clear.  Adam >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. We appreciate the >new measures of transparency taken with respect >to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG >should work through two elists ­ one open and >other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >public importance, normally discussions should >be open to public scrutiny. However we do >understand that there can be some circumstances >requiring closed discussions. All discussions >taken to the closed list should be listed, and >summaries of them provided as appropriate. By >the same rule transcripts should be provided of >all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless >some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in >a closed manner, in which case such topics >should be listed, and summary of discussions >provided as appropriate. >Membership of the MAG >(text to be decided.) Since the process that >built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I >will request someone to suggest fresh text for >this. >Special Advisors and Chair >·         The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >·         One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >·         We will also like greater clarity at >this point whether MAG has any substantive >identity other than advising the UN SG. For >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >looks highly impractical that these tasks can >cohere in the UN SG. >·         Having some authority and identity of >its own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >·          MAG should prepare an annual report >for the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >·         IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, which should be truly >multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. >Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph >80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > >Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on >'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at >present. (also put below this email) (I am still >to incorporate changes like ­ removing the >number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. >Will do in the morning.) > >To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency >taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of >the view that MAG should work through two elists >­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >issues of public importance, normally >discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >However we do understand that there can be some >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All >discussions taken to the closed list should be >listed, and summaries of them provided as >appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should >be provided of all face to face meetings of the >MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >topics should be listed, and summary of >discussions provided as appropriate.² > >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to >getting into any kind of details on the matter >of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >different stakeholders, and views in favor of >saying something simply like ­ CS is >under-represented and this should be corrected >in this round (I will pick from the emails and >construct appropriate language, but basically >this is the point) > >Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There >are two key parts of the statement, the MAG >membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ >part, and in addition some other specific issues. > >The part other than on MAG membership received a >few early comment, and if I remember right, all >positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further >comments may also be given. > >Now in the MAG membership part, there were three >substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want >the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >received consensus and will not go in. However, >the question that now comes up is (about the >second substantive part) - can we ask for >clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, >quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >issues without ourselves suggesting anything at >all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on >these issues. Is it defensible to ask >secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me >know what to do with this part. We did ask in >caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these >issues. > >And about the third substantive part, I am also >not sure how can we ask for self-selection of >each stakeholder category. I would think >self-selection will require the secretariat to >recognize some parameters of what or who can go >into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking >them to name all categories, and some definition >of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we >then ask only for self selection for CS (well, >hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >quickly have to resume this discussion that some >are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish >some criteria of who all can be included and who >cant, and on what grounds etc) > >In all these contexts, I am not at all clear >what can go in this part of the statement. >Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > >Also pl also close comments on the other parts, >which have (I think) found no negative comment, >but still not enough comments. > >Parminder > >(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. >Membership of the MAG >·      We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. >·      The rules for membership of the MAG, >including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and make open along with due >justifications. We think that as per Tunis >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, >civil society and the business sector. TA also >rightly recognizes international organizations >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >they should be allowed an appropriate number of >seats in the MAG. >·      As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats >for international organizations, out of the >remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to >11 seats. There are five civil society members >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >should be corrected in this round of rotation of >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >replace each retiring member with one from the >same stakeholder group. Full civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >·      Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen based on appropriate processes of >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of >that particular stakeholder group. This >complicates the process of selection, especially >in the case of civil society and business >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of >judgment. This, however, should be done in a >completely transparent manner. Deviations from >the self-selection processes of stakeholder >groups should be kept to the minimum and be >defensible, and normally be explained. >·      All stakeholders should be asked to keep >in mind the need to adequately represent >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >where applicable, special interest groups. >Special Advisors and Chair >·      The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >·      We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >·      One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >·      It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >·      We will also like greater clarity at this >point whether MAG has any substantive identity >other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to >carry out some part of the mandate which >requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying >issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs >to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly >impractical that these tasks can cohere in the >UN SG. >·      Having some authority and identity of its >own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >·      An annual report needs to be submitted by >the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >preparing this annual report, at present? It is >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >report, with engagement of all stakeholder >members. >·      (Alternate text for the above point since >CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is >nothing very exciting about it. But every >organization including IGF should have an annual >report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for >the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >·      IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 08:20:42 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:20:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080220192119.363F9A6C8C@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > Membership of the MAG > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > formulation failed, How's this: We reiterate our previously stated dissatisfaction with the limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, as full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. CS is underrepresented, we (and others) agree, and we want to support the remedying of that anomaly. We also note that organizations having an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. -------------------- The above has some of Ian's, some of Lee's and some of our previous text intermingled. Doh! Looks like Adam has beaten me to the punch, and I am happy to accept his more eloquent text. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 21 08:44:58 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:44:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080221121638.E7949E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47BD805A.5010802@wzb.eu> Adam, thank you for putting together this new version. I agree with all the suggested changes, in particular with deleting the paragraph in the section "role and structure of the MAG" that discusses the authority and identity of the MAG. In my view, the paragraph before (following below) could also be deleted or should be reformulated: We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', > 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs > to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > tasks can cohere in the UN SG. My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how greater clarity should be derived. If we suggest an IGF workshop on this topic, we should say so. The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we want the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on that. I support Adam's suggestion to include some of these issues in the stock taking session and accompanying workshops. The specific role of the MAG could be one of these issues. jeanette Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. > > I've edited and where important noted the new text. > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of > multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added > multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] > > With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF > is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive > dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different > stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others > viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged > development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as > required. > > Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we > think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing > the full potential of this unique global institution. > > In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in > the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding > renewal and restructuring of MAG. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new > measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of > the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other > closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally > discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand > that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All > discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of > them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be > provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are > expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such > topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as > appropriate. > > Membership of the MAG > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. > > **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) > > [start] > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG > members should be rotated every year. > > * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities > of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary > General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. > > * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG > membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment > in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that > it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given > set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular > stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially > in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some > scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. > This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. > Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups > should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the > last sentence, think they were too much to demand] > > * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. [some change to wording] > > [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > > [end] > > > > Special Advisors and Chair > > * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. > [some change to wording] > > * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of > logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to > understand the division of work and responsibility between the two > chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to > the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if > the Indian government representative has already taken over as the > co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. > > Role and Structure of the MAG > > With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to > list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF > meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > > * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These > WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing > internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > > * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', > 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs > to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > > * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It > is something we should recommended in the other contribution be > addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking > stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some > authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some > important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda > mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does > MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not > MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full > engagement of all stakeholders. > > * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the > evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted > by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 > of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of > continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in > the paragraph 80 of TA. > > replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public > funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the > effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in > Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look > forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The > United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil > its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] > We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, > while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of > IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources > needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be > established to support the participation of people from developing and > least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF > preparatory consultations. > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful participation in its open consultations. > > In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder > advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because > multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. > > END > > Hope the suggested changes are clear. > > Adam > > > > > >> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue of MAG >> renewal / restructuring >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF >> is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive >> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different >> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others >> viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically >> engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy >> guidance as required. >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of >> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward >> realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements >> in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken >> up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions >> regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to >> making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new >> measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are >> of the view that MAG should work through two elists ­ one open and >> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, >> normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do >> understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed >> discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be >> listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same >> rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of >> the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a >> closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary >> of discussions provided as appropriate. >> Membership of the MAG >> (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian >> formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for >> this. >> Special Advisors and Chair >> · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be >> clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate >> diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors >> as well. >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the >> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, >> nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a >> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of >> various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, >> we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility >> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, >> especially if the Indian government representative has already taken >> over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the >> post-Delhi phase. >> Role and Structure of the MAG >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to >> re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to >> list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >> · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the >> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve >> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must >> review its decision making processes to make them more effective. >> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more >> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its >> mandate. >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working >> groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. >> · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG >> has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For >> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving >> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks >> highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. >> · Having some authority and identity of its own is also >> required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how >> well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what >> more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to >> undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >> exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all >> stakeholders. >> · MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This >> report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year >> against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also >> outline plans for the year ahead. >> · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level >> IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should >> be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is >> one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a >> meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the >> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some >> positive results from that meeting. >> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil >> society from developing and least developed countries to ensure >> meaningful participation in its open consultations. >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for >> official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important >> aspect of the IGF. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> >> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are >> discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to >> incorporate changes like ­ removing the number 40, removing all >> numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) >> >> To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like >> >> ³We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to >> MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two >> elists ­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >> public importance, normally discussions should be open to public >> scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some >> circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to >> the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as >> appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all >> face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly >> chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics >> should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate.² >> >> Now on this long discussion on the Œtech community¹ issue. There is >> enough opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of >> how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and >> views in favor of saying something simply like ­ CS is >> under-represented and this should be corrected in this round (I will >> pick from the emails and construct appropriate language, but basically >> this is the point) >> >> Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of >> the statement, the MAG membership part and the ŒMAG role and >> structure¹ part, and in addition some other specific issues. >> >> The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, >> and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). >> Further comments may also be given. >> >> Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. >> Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >> received consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now >> comes up is (about the second substantive part) - can we ask for >> clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder >> description etc kind of issues without ourselves suggesting anything >> at all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is >> it defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >> as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know what to do with >> this part. We did ask in caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on >> these issues. >> >> And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we >> ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think >> self-selection will require the secretariat to recognize some >> parameters of what or who can go into a category. So, in fact, we will >> be asking them to name all categories, and some definition of what >> constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we then ask only for self >> selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >> quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and >> we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included and >> who cant, and on what grounds etc) >> >> In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part >> of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. >> >> Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) >> found no negative comment, but still not enough comments. >> >> Parminder >> >> (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue of MAG >> renewal / restructuring >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF >> is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive >> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different >> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others >> viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically >> engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy >> guidance as required. >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of >> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward >> realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements >> in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken >> up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions >> regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to >> making the IGF more effective and productive. >> Membership of the MAG >> · We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of >> MAG members should be rotated every year. >> · The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >> representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >> established, and make open along with due justifications. We think >> that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >> should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the >> business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international >> organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they >> should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. >> · As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international >> organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled >> to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG >> of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation >> of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring >> member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society >> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >> experiment in global governance. >> · Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on >> appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >> appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder >> entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the >> whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the >> process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and >> business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting >> authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be >> done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the >> self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the >> minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. >> · All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to >> adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >> where applicable, special interest groups. >> Special Advisors and Chair >> · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be >> clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate >> diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors >> as well. >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the >> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, >> nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a >> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of >> various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, >> we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility >> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, >> especially if the Indian government representative has already taken >> over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the >> post-Delhi phase. >> Role and Structure of the MAG >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to >> re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to >> list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >> · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the >> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve >> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must >> review its decision making processes to make them more effective. >> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more >> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its >> mandate. >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. >> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. >> · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has >> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, >> to carry out some part of the mandate which requires Œinterfacing¹, >> advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG >> needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that >> these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. >> · Having some authority and identity of its own is also required >> for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is >> the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more >> needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, >> such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which >> needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. >> · An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN >> Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >> preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG >> prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder >> members. >> · (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an >> inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. >> But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) >> MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for >> the year ahead. >> · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >> and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >> using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is >> one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a >> meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the >> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some >> positive results from that meeting. >> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil >> society from developing and least developed countries to ensure >> meaningful participation in its open consultations. >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for >> official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important >> aspect of 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 narten at us.ibm.com Thu Feb 21 09:04:29 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:04:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <200802211404.m1LE4TOd004859@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> "Ian Peter" writes: > Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war > in Iraq - no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part > started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no > support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] > victory will be next month. You also conveniently overlooked this opening line from the vary same charts you cite: > Reality Therapy > > We will transition to IPv6, get over it > The issues are when and how > Marketing fantasy is not helping us > actually deploy > This presentation may seem negative, > but think of it more as taking off the > rose colored glasses so we can see > what reality is so we can actually make > deployment decisions See the first bullet in particular. Randy is very much saying: wake up people, we need to deploy this. Let's figure out what needs to be done to get it deployed. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Feb 21 09:09:54 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:09:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0802210325v2849e620i321f462f6ec62f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802211409.m1LE9sNK007194@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> > IPv6 DOES have variable length in the architecture. IPv6 does not have variable length addresses. But this list hardly seems an appropriate place to have a discussion about such technical details. Really! Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 11:14:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:44:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221161453.276046782B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Adam thanks for all the work. Just a couple of relatively minor points to clarify. > * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate > for the MAG to do. It is something we should > recommended in the other contribution be > addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) > part of the taking stock/way forward session and > associated workshops.] Having some authority and > identity of its own is also required for MAG to > do some important regular tasks like assessing > how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being > fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be > done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to > undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who > would carry out this exercise, which needs to be > done with full engagement of all stakeholders. Really don’t understand why and how MAG as the body driving the IGF may not from time to time assess how IGF is shaping up, and whether it is fulfilling its mandate. To do that and take corrective steps if necessary I would think is the whole job of the MAG, isnt it. , and > also outline plans for the year ahead [I think > planning the year ahead impossible given the > evolving nature of the IGF]. Well, there are always some priorities for the next IGF, some things from the last IGF etc, some other specific plans - like it was this time to assess transparency bec of UN SG's message - etc. Puts some structure on what MAG and IGF does, and are supposed to do. In any case it is good to give some substantive responsibilities to the MAG other than the 3 tasks it does at present - choose main themes, choose workshops, and choose main session speakers.... They are quite under-employed I would say. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. > > I've edited and where important noted the new text. > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's > input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory > group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added > multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] > > With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of > the opinion that IGF is getting firmly > established as the key global forum for an > inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy > issues. This has led to different stakeholder > groups beginning to understand and appreciate > each others viewpoints, which sets the context of > a socially and politically engaged development of > the Internet through appropriate policy guidance > as required. > > Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and > also tried new forms of interactions. These are > all steps in the right direction. However, we > think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > steps toward realizing the full potential of this > unique global institution. > > In a later statement we will provide inputs on > possible improvements in the format for IGF, New > Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > the main sessions. Here we will present some > suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring > of MAG. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more > effective and productive. We appreciate the new > measures of transparency taken with respect to > MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should > work through two elists -- one open and other > closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public > importance, normally discussions should be open > to public scrutiny. However we do understand that > there can be some circumstances requiring closed > discussions. All discussions taken to the closed > list should be listed, and summaries of them > provided as appropriate. By the same rule > transcripts should be provided of all face to > face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are > expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, > in which case such topics should be listed, and > summary of discussions provided as appropriate. > > Membership of the MAG > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that > built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I > will request someone to suggest fresh text for > this. > > **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) > > [start] > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be > rotated every year. > > * In the interest of transparency and > understanding the responsibilities of MAG > members, when making appointments to the MAG we > ask the Secretary General to explain which > interested group that person is associated with. > > * Civil society has been under represented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected > in this round of rotation and a fair balance of > members between all stakeholders assured. At > least one quarter of the MAG membership must be > drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. > [all the stuff about numbers deleted] > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen > based on appropriate processes of self-selection > by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it > is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder > entity, or even a given set of them, as > completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates > the process of selection, especially in the case > of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for some scope for the final selecting authority > exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, > should be done in a completely transparent > manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to > the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of > the last sentence, think they were too much to > demand] > > * When recommending members of the MAG all > stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of > gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. [some change to wording] > > [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > > [end] > > > > Special Advisors and Chair > > * The need for Special Advisors, their role in > the MAG and criteria for their selection should > be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > mentioned above must be maintained in the > selection of Special Advisors. [some change to > wording] > > * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should > only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The > host country should be able to nominate a deputy > chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in > context of various issues of logistics for the > annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to > understand the division of work and > responsibility between the two chairs in the > present arrangement? It may be too late to move > over to the suggested new arrangement for the New > Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > government representative has already taken over > as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > about the post-Delhi phase. > > Role and Structure of the MAG > > With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > also the right time to re-visit the role and the > structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > * One function is of course to make all > arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision making processes to make them more > effective. These are especially important if IGF > is to evolve into something more than what it is > today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > mandate. > > * It will be very useful for MAG to work through > working groups. These WGs should prepare for each > main session and the set of workshops connected > to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > > * We will also like greater clarity at this point > whether MAG has any substantive identity other > than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry > out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', > 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be > able to represent IGF. It looks highly > impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > SG. > > * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate > for the MAG to do. It is something we should > recommended in the other contribution be > addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) > part of the taking stock/way forward session and > associated workshops.] Having some authority and > identity of its own is also required for MAG to > do some important regular tasks like assessing > how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being > fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be > done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to > undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who > would carry out this exercise, which needs to be > done with full engagement of all stakeholders. > > * MAG should prepare an annual report for the > IGF. This report should mention IGF activities > and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and > also outline plans for the year ahead [I think > planning the year ahead impossible given the > evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest > this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General would also satisfy the requirements of > para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for > discussion about the desirability of continuing > the Forum beyond 2010. > > * IGF should actively encourage regional and > national level IGFs, which should be truly > multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. > Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 > of TA. > > replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, > through untied public funds, is one of the > central imperatives for improving the > effectiveness, and consequently, the > meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > meeting among potential funders is being held in > Geneva around the February consultations on this > issue, and we look forward to some positive > results from that meeting." with New: The > United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is > the outcome of a UN process and should ensure > that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. > [from APC statement] We have great respect and > appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, > while severely under-funded it has still been > responsible for many of IGF's successes. The > Secretariat should be provided with resources > needed to perform its role effectively. In > addition, a fund should be established to support > the participation of people from developing and > least developed countries in the IGF annual > meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > IGF should also fund the participation of at > least 5 members of civil society from developing > and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful participation in its open > consultations. > > In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at > least for official purposes, because > multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect > of the IGF. > > END > > Hope the suggested changes are clear. > > Adam > > > > > > >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s > >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring > >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are > >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly > >established as the key global forum for an > >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy > >issues. This has led to different stakeholder > >groups beginning to understand and appreciate > >each others viewpoints, which sets the context > >of a socially and politically engaged > >development of the Internet through appropriate > >policy guidance as required. > >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and > >also tried new forms of interactions. These are > >all steps in the right direction. However, we > >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > >steps toward realizing the full potential of > >this unique global institution. > >In a later statement we will provide inputs on > >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New > >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > >the main sessions. Here we will present some > >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring > >of MAG. > >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF > >more effective and productive. We appreciate the > >new measures of transparency taken with respect > >to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG > >should work through two elists ­ one open and > >other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of > >public importance, normally discussions should > >be open to public scrutiny. However we do > >understand that there can be some circumstances > >requiring closed discussions. All discussions > >taken to the closed list should be listed, and > >summaries of them provided as appropriate. By > >the same rule transcripts should be provided of > >all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless > >some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in > >a closed manner, in which case such topics > >should be listed, and summary of discussions > >provided as appropriate. > >Membership of the MAG > >(text to be decided.) Since the process that > >built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I > >will request someone to suggest fresh text for > >this. > >Special Advisors and Chair > >· The role and necessity of the Special > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >should be represented in the selection of > >Special Advisors as well. > >· We are of the opinion that in keeping > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > >case, we will like to understand the division of > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >government representative has already taken over > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >about the post-Delhi phase. > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >· One function is of course to make all > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > >decision making processes to make them more > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > >its mandate. > >· It will be very useful for MAG to work > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > >for each main session and the set of workshops > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > >effectively. > >· We will also like greater clarity at > >this point whether MAG has any substantive > >identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate > >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, > >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ > >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >looks highly impractical that these tasks can > >cohere in the UN SG. > >· Having some authority and identity of > >its own is also required for MAG to do some > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > >engagement of all stakeholders. > >· MAG should prepare an annual report > >for the IGF. This report should mention IGF > >activities and performance for the year against > >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its > >mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. > >· IGF should actively encourage regional > >and national level IGFs, which should be truly > >multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > >drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. > >Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph > >80 of TA. > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > >untied public funds, is one of the central > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > >understand that a meeting among potential > >funders is being held in Geneva around the > >February consultations on this issue, and we > >look forward to some positive results from that > >meeting. > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > >and least developed countries to ensure > >meaningful participation in its open > >consultations. > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > > > > >Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on > >'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at > >present. (also put below this email) (I am still > >to incorporate changes like ­ removing the > >number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. > >Will do in the morning.) > > > >To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > > > >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency > >taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of > >the view that MAG should work through two elists > >­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses > >issues of public importance, normally > >discussions should be open to public scrutiny. > >However we do understand that there can be some > >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All > >discussions taken to the closed list should be > >listed, and summaries of them provided as > >appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should > >be provided of all face to face meetings of the > >MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to > >be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such > >topics should be listed, and summary of > >discussions provided as appropriate.² > > > >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech > >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to > >getting into any kind of details on the matter > >of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis > >different stakeholders, and views in favor of > >saying something simply like ­ CS is > >under-represented and this should be corrected > >in this round (I will pick from the emails and > >construct appropriate language, but basically > >this is the point) > > > >Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There > >are two key parts of the statement, the MAG > >membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ > >part, and in addition some other specific issues. > > > >The part other than on MAG membership received a > >few early comment, and if I remember right, all > >positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further > >comments may also be given. > > > >Now in the MAG membership part, there were three > >substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want > >the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not > >received consensus and will not go in. However, > >the question that now comes up is (about the > >second substantive part) - can we ask for > >clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, > >quota, stakeholder description etc kind of > >issues without ourselves suggesting anything at > >all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on > >these issues. Is it defensible to ask > >secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ > >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me > >know what to do with this part. We did ask in > >caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these > >issues. > > > >And about the third substantive part, I am also > >not sure how can we ask for self-selection of > >each stakeholder category. I would think > >self-selection will require the secretariat to > >recognize some parameters of what or who can go > >into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking > >them to name all categories, and some definition > >of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we > >then ask only for self selection for CS (well, > >hypothetically, if they do agree, we will > >quickly have to resume this discussion that some > >are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish > >some criteria of who all can be included and who > >cant, and on what grounds etc) > > > >In all these contexts, I am not at all clear > >what can go in this part of the statement. > >Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > > > >Also pl also close comments on the other parts, > >which have (I think) found no negative comment, > >but still not enough comments. > > > >Parminder > > > >(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s > >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring > >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are > >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly > >established as the key global forum for an > >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy > >issues. This has led to different stakeholder > >groups beginning to understand and appreciate > >each others viewpoints, which sets the context > >of a socially and politically engaged > >development of the Internet through appropriate > >policy guidance as required. > >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and > >also tried new forms of interactions. These are > >all steps in the right direction. However, we > >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > >steps toward realizing the full potential of > >this unique global institution. > >In a later statement we will provide inputs on > >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New > >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > >the main sessions. Here we will present some > >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring > >of MAG. > >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF > >more effective and productive. > >Membership of the MAG > >· We think that 40 is a good number for MAG > >members. One third of MAG members should be > >rotated every year. > >· The rules for membership of the MAG, > >including in terms of representation of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly > >established, and make open along with due > >justifications. We think that as per Tunis > >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > >should be divided equally among governments, > >civil society and the business sector. TA also > >rightly recognizes international organizations > >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and > >they should be allowed an appropriate number of > >seats in the MAG. > >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats > >for international organizations, out of the > >remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to > >11 seats. There are five civil society members > >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which > >should be corrected in this round of rotation of > >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we > >replace each retiring member with one from the > >same stakeholder group. Full civil society > >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > >for this new experiment in global governance. > >· Stakeholder representatives should be > >chosen based on appropriate processes of > >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any > >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > >them, as completely representing the whole of > >that particular stakeholder group. This > >complicates the process of selection, especially > >in the case of civil society and business > >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > >selecting authority exercising a degree of > >judgment. This, however, should be done in a > >completely transparent manner. Deviations from > >the self-selection processes of stakeholder > >groups should be kept to the minimum and be > >defensible, and normally be explained. > >· All stakeholders should be asked to keep > >in mind the need to adequately represent > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > >where applicable, special interest groups. > >Special Advisors and Chair > >· The role and necessity of the Special > >Advisors should be clarified, as also the > >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >should be represented in the selection of > >Special Advisors as well. > >· We are of the opinion that in keeping > >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, > >there should only be one chair, nominated by the > >UN SG. The host country should be able to > >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > >would be helpful in context of various issues of > >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any > >case, we will like to understand the division of > >work and responsibility between the two chairs, > >in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >to move over to this suggested arrangement for > >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >government representative has already taken over > >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >about the post-Delhi phase. > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > >also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >· One function is of course to make all > >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > >are of the opinion that MAG must review its > >decision making processes to make them more > >effective. These are especially important if IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is > >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of > >its mandate. > >· It will be very useful for MAG to work > >through working groups. These WGs should prepare > >for each main session and the set of workshops > >connected to this main session. WGs can also be > >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more > >effectively. > >· We will also like greater clarity at this > >point whether MAG has any substantive identity > >other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > >carry out some part of the mandate which > >requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying > >issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs > >to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly > >impractical that these tasks can cohere in the > >UN SG. > >· Having some authority and identity of its > >own is also required for MAG to do some > >important regular tasks like assessing how well > >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG > >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an > >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >exercise, which needs to be done with full > >engagement of all stakeholders. > >· An annual report needs to be submitted by > >the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and > >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > >preparing this annual report, at present? It is > >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this > >report, with engagement of all stakeholder > >members. > >· (Alternate text for the above point since > >CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is > >nothing very exciting about it. But every > >organization including IGF should have an annual > >report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for > >the IGF. This report should mention IGF > >activities and performance for the year against > >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its > >mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. > >· IGF should actively encourage regional > >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan > >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > >paragraph 80 of TA. > >Greater financial support for the IGF, through > >untied public funds, is one of the central > >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > >understand that a meeting among potential > >funders is being held in Geneva around the > >February consultations on this issue, and we > >look forward to some positive results from that > >meeting. > >IGF should also fund the participation of at > >least 5 members of civil society from developing > >and least developed countries to ensure > >meaningful participation in its open > >consultations. > >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > >term MAG at least for official purposes, because > >multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 11:17:07 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:47:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221161736.18A1F6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I think we should recommend including discussion > of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the > way forward" session and some associated > workshops. Important we start looking at what's > been achieved and to prepare for discussion about > the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond > 2010. There could be a call for workshops on > topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not > the subject of other sessions) and the second in > the "branded" series. Yes, like other main session it should also be intensely prepared for by a WG, and have associated set of workshops, with role and mandate of IGF workshop as one of them. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles > > >Hi, > > > >Per Parminder¹s request, I¹ve drafted some > >language on two possible main session topics. > > In both cases, I took note of the Swiss > >statement.  One could argue either way the > >politics of doing that, but ultimately I thought > >it¹s sensible to clearly make the linkage so the > >proposals are framed in subsequent discussion as > >a MS intervention rather than just some CS > >thing.  If OfCom¹s not shy about supporting our > >proposals, why should we be shy about doing the > >same?  Also, on the WSIS principles piece, I > >suggest narrowing the focus this time in a way > >that makes the issues and politics more > >manageable.  Several years of experience raising > >this with IGF leadership and at ITU and OECD > >meetings, etc. lead me to believe that the > >camel¹s nose would be more less unwelcome in the > >tent if it looks like transparency and inclusion > >rather than ³everything should be multilateral² > >or ³let¹s rehash WSIS² etc. > > > >Thoughts, suggestions, corrections of my false > >consciousness and running dog lackey ways, etc? > > > >BTW re: one other point raised prior, I would > >suggest that we not propose a main session on > >the IGF mandate, but rather hold off for another > >IGC workshop instead---second in a branded > >series, the first having gone well and not led > >the sky to fall etc.  I can¹t imagine key > >players welcoming the possibility of a main > >session hullabaloo on that. > > > I think we should recommend including discussion > of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the > way forward" session and some associated > workshops. Important we start looking at what's > been achieved and to prepare for discussion about > the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond > 2010. There could be a call for workshops on > topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not > the subject of other sessions) and the second in > the "branded" series. > > Adam > > > >Cheers, > > > >Bill > > > > > >A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > > >Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda > >and its mandate for the IGF.  Development also > >was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the > >Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured > >a main session that devoted significant, focused > >attention to the linkages between Internet > >governance mechanisms and development.  However, > >at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > >actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of > >Communications and other partners from all > >stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development > >Agenda for Internet Governance.²  The workshop > >considered the options for establishing a > >holistic program of analysis and action that > >would help mainstream development considerations > >into Internet governance decision making > >processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed > >strong interest in further work on the topic > >being pursued in the IGF.  Hence, we believe the > >Development Agenda concept should be taken up in > >a main session at New Delhi, and that this would > >be of keen interest to a great many participants > >there.  We also support the Swiss OfCom¹s > >proposal to consider establishing a > >multi-stakeholder Working Group that could > >develop recommendations to the IGF on a > >development agenda. > > > > > >Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > > >The WSIS principles hold that Internet > >governance processes ³should be multilateral, > >transparent and democratic, with the full > >involvement of governments, the private sector, > >civil society and international organizations.² > >Governments invoked these principles throughout > >the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda > >mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, on an > >ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles > >in Internet Governance processes.² > > Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > >follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key > >element of its mandate.  The Internet Governance > >Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > >activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the > >Swiss OfCom¹s statement that implementation of > >the WSIS principles should be added as a > >cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF > >discussions.  To help kick-start that > >cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a > >main session in New Delhi concentrate on two > >WSIS principles of general applicability for > >which progress in implementation can be most > >readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive > >participation.  The session could consider > >patterns of practice across Internet governance > >mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons > >concerning good or best practices. > > > > > >*********************************************************** > >William J. Drake > >Director, Project on the Information > >  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > >Graduate Institute of International and > >  Development Studies > >Geneva, Switzerland > >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > >*********************************************************** > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 11:30:30 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:00:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080221163104.36813A6C93@smtp2.electricembers.net> McTim > Looks like Adam has beaten me to the punch, and I am happy to accept > his more eloquent text. On the other hand, I am happier to accept yours. :) Well, Adam when we are asking MAG to name stakeholder groups of selected MAG members, why dont we name the fourth stakeholder group as well. And yes, I am very clear that they need to have appropriate representation in the MAG. (So, Suresh, it really is not that I have been trying to offload anyone's representation - which you continue to believe. I never asked for it once. I just want clarity on the nature of the groups.) In the present formulation of McTim, we do not say the this fourth group are stakeholders (Meryem seemed to want it that way, but I am fine with calling them stakeholders as well, and if remember right, not very sure though, Meryem, though with reservations, had ok-ed it)but we do say they need to be represented. Would allay misgivings of this group that CS wants them off MAG or any such thing. We most definitely don't. I do think that the issue in fact is simpler than the long discussion made it out to be. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:51 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > > > > Membership of the MAG > > > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > > formulation failed, > > How's this: > > We reiterate our previously stated dissatisfaction with the limited > representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory > Group, as full civil society representation is necessary to ensure > legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. CS is > underrepresented, we (and others) agree, and we want to support the > remedying of that anomaly. > > We also note that organizations having an important role in the > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > participation. > > -------------------- > > The above has some of Ian's, some of Lee's and some of our previous > text intermingled. > > Doh! > > Looks like Adam has beaten me to the punch, and I am happy to accept > his more eloquent text. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 11:56:49 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:26:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47BD805A.5010802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080221165728.26738E255D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Jeanette > My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how > greater clarity should be derived. Sorry, but I didn’t understand this. Do you mean that there is none who is supposed to have that answer. This is just the structure-in-the-air thing about IGF that many push for and I don’t understand. If CS is not asking questions, what is it doing. For us MAG is the contact point for IGF (I have none other, and if you can think of any, pl tell me)so we ask questions of it, without starting to worry too much about how poor MAG will answer them. Now, if there is no process of getting clarity on any point, and no one is supposed to have any degree of clarity on anything, why are we making this statement all, and to whom.. The whole thing gives me almost a ghostly scare. Who is MAG, who is IGF, who knows anything, who decides anything... If we suggest an IGF workshop on this > topic, we should say so. You think an IGF workshop can clarify this matter. I am interested, pl tell me how. Do you mean if we hold a workshop where there is absolute consensus, and no dissent at all, about a given set of roles of MAG, then that will be it. We are not making tech standards in IETF, we are a political public policy space. BTW, even if there were by some strange luck absolute consensus among each and every person at an IGF workshop, then still where does this consensus show - -there are no outcomes documents. I don’t know what will be the means to prove that consensus. > The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we want > the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on > that. Each of these terms, as you know, is from tunis agenda. And the present draft text says that "to carry out some part of the mandate which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving recommendations’ etc..." So, there is no expansion of the role. On the other hand a contraction of the role is the real issue. Our May 07 statement on substantive themes for Rio, in the text on calling for a workshop on the role and mandate of the IGF, did recognize all these as parts of the mandate of the IGF. And it went as a rough consensus statement. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Adam, thank you for putting together this new version. I agree with all > the suggested changes, in particular with deleting the paragraph in the > section "role and structure of the MAG" that discusses the > authority and identity of the MAG. > > In my view, the paragraph before (following below) could also be deleted > or should be reformulated: > > We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > > substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > > carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', > > 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG > needs > > to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > > tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > > My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how > greater clarity should be derived. If we suggest an IGF workshop on this > topic, we should say so. > The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we want > the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on > that. > > I support Adam's suggestion to include some of these issues in the stock > taking session and accompanying workshops. The specific role of the MAG > could be one of these issues. > > jeanette > > Adam Peake wrote: > > Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain > text. > > > > I've edited and where important noted the new text. > > > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of > > multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added > > multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] > > > > With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF > > is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive > > dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different > > stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others > > viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged > > development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as > > required. > > > > Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > > interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we > > think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing > > the full potential of this unique global institution. > > > > In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in > > the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > > the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding > > renewal and restructuring of MAG. > > > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > > making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new > > measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of > > the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other > > closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally > > discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand > > that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All > > discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of > > them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be > > provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are > > expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such > > topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as > > appropriate. > > > > Membership of the MAG > > > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > > formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for > this. > > > > **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) > > > > [start] > > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG > > members should be rotated every year. > > > > * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities > > of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary > > General to explain which interested group that person is associated > with. > > > > * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > > between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG > > membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment > > in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] > > > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that > > it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given > > set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular > > stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially > > in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some > > scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. > > This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. > > Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups > > should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the > > last sentence, think they were too much to demand] > > > > * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > > interest groups. [some change to wording] > > > > [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > > > > [end] > > > > > > > > Special Advisors and Chair > > > > * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for > > their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > > mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. > > [some change to wording] > > > > * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an > > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of > > logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to > > understand the division of work and responsibility between the two > > chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to > > the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if > > the Indian government representative has already taken over as the > > co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. > > > > Role and Structure of the MAG > > > > With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > > re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to > > list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > > > * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF > > meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > > decision making processes to make them more effective. These are > > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > > > > * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These > > WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > > connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing > > internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > > > > * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > > substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > > carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', > > 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs > > to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > > tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > > > > * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It > > is something we should recommended in the other contribution be > > addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking > > stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some > > authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some > > important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda > > mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does > > MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not > > MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full > > engagement of all stakeholders. > > > > * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > > the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the > > evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted > > by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 > > of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of > > continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > > > * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > > for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in > > the paragraph 80 of TA. > > > > replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public > > funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the > > effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We > > understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in > > Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look > > forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The > > United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil > > its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] > > We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, > > while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of > > IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources > > needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be > > established to support the participation of people from developing and > > least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF > > preparatory consultations. > > > > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > > meaningful participation in its open consultations. > > > > In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder > > advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because > > multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. > > > > END > > > > Hope the suggested changes are clear. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > >> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue of MAG > >> renewal / restructuring > >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF > >> is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive > >> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different > >> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others > >> viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically > >> engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy > >> guidance as required. > >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > >> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we > >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward > >> realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. > >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements > >> in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken > >> up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions > >> regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. > >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > >> making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new > >> measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are > >> of the view that MAG should work through two elists ­ one open and > >> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, > >> normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do > >> understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed > >> discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be > >> listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same > >> rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of > >> the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a > >> closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary > >> of discussions provided as appropriate. > >> Membership of the MAG > >> (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > >> formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for > >> this. > >> Special Advisors and Chair > >> · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > >> clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate > >> diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors > >> as well. > >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > >> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, > >> nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a > >> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of > >> various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, > >> we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > >> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > >> especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > >> over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the > >> post-Delhi phase. > >> Role and Structure of the MAG > >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > >> re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to > >> list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >> · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the > >> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out > >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve > >> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must > >> review its decision making processes to make them more effective. > >> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more > >> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > >> mandate. > >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working > >> groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > >> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > >> · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG > >> has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > >> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving > >> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks > >> highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > >> · Having some authority and identity of its own is also > >> required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how > >> well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what > >> more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to > >> undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this > >> exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all > >> stakeholders. > >> · MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This > >> report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year > >> against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also > >> outline plans for the year ahead. > >> · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level > >> IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should > >> be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is > >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. > >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is > >> one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > >> meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > >> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some > >> positive results from that meeting. > >> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > >> society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > >> meaningful participation in its open consultations. > >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for > >> official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >> aspect of the IGF. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > >> > >> > >> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are > >> discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to > >> incorporate changes like ­ removing the number 40, removing all > >> numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) > >> > >> To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > >> > >> ³We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to > >> MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two > >> elists ­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of > >> public importance, normally discussions should be open to public > >> scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some > >> circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to > >> the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as > >> appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all > >> face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly > >> chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics > >> should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate.² > >> > >> Now on this long discussion on the Œtech community¹ issue. There is > >> enough opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of > >> how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and > >> views in favor of saying something simply like ­ CS is > >> under-represented and this should be corrected in this round (I will > >> pick from the emails and construct appropriate language, but basically > >> this is the point) > >> > >> Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of > >> the statement, the MAG membership part and the ŒMAG role and > >> structure¹ part, and in addition some other specific issues. > >> > >> The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, > >> and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). > >> Further comments may also be given. > >> > >> Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. > >> Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not > >> received consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now > >> comes up is (about the second substantive part) - can we ask for > >> clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder > >> description etc kind of issues without ourselves suggesting anything > >> at all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is > >> it defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ > >> as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know what to do with > >> this part. We did ask in caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on > >> these issues. > >> > >> And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we > >> ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think > >> self-selection will require the secretariat to recognize some > >> parameters of what or who can go into a category. So, in fact, we will > >> be asking them to name all categories, and some definition of what > >> constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we then ask only for self > >> selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will > >> quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and > >> we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included and > >> who cant, and on what grounds etc) > >> > >> In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part > >> of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > >> > >> Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) > >> found no negative comment, but still not enough comments. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue of MAG > >> renewal / restructuring > >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF > >> is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive > >> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different > >> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others > >> viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically > >> engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy > >> guidance as required. > >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > >> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we > >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward > >> realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. > >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements > >> in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken > >> up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions > >> regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. > >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > >> making the IGF more effective and productive. > >> Membership of the MAG > >> · We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of > >> MAG members should be rotated every year. > >> · The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > >> representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly > >> established, and make open along with due justifications. We think > >> that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership > >> should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the > >> business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international > >> organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they > >> should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. > >> · As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international > >> organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled > >> to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG > >> of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation > >> of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring > >> member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society > >> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > >> experiment in global governance. > >> · Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on > >> appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do > >> appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder > >> entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the > >> whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the > >> process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and > >> business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting > >> authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be > >> done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the > >> self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the > >> minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. > >> · All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > >> adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, > >> where applicable, special interest groups. > >> Special Advisors and Chair > >> · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be > >> clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate > >> diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors > >> as well. > >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > >> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, > >> nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a > >> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of > >> various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, > >> we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > >> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late > >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > >> especially if the Indian government representative has already taken > >> over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the > >> post-Delhi phase. > >> Role and Structure of the MAG > >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > >> re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to > >> list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >> · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the > >> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out > >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve > >> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must > >> review its decision making processes to make them more effective. > >> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more > >> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > >> mandate. > >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. > >> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > >> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > >> · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has > >> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, > >> to carry out some part of the mandate which requires Œinterfacing¹, > >> advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG > >> needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that > >> these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > >> · Having some authority and identity of its own is also required > >> for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is > >> the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more > >> needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, > >> such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which > >> needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. > >> · An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN > >> Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in > >> preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG > >> prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder > >> members. > >> · (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an > >> inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. > >> But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) > >> MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > >> parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > >> the year ahead. > >> · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > >> and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly > >> using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. > >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is > >> one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and > >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > >> meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > >> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some > >> positive results from that meeting. > >> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil > >> society from developing and least developed countries to ensure > >> meaningful participation in its open consultations. > >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for > >> official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >> aspect of 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 Thu Feb 21 12:04:16 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:04:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] main themes: 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <02cf01c874ab$ccc39ae0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Colleagues, As previously I come here not to praise.... I don't find anything objectionable in Bill/Parminder's phrasing re: #4 below... However, in the interests of avoiding mission creep and in CS solidarity I'm attaching a draft document that I've been responsible for preparing for the CS contribution in advance of the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. This document deals with "ICT4D" issues and is meant to be somewhat comprehensive with respect to those issues from a CS perspective. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. (They could be addressed to me directly (probably better off line) or added to the wiki http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org . This document is part of one chapter in the broader statement that is being put together by Katitza Rodriguez of Public Voices.) I'm sending this to this list for two reasons... One to get expert feedback and content/referencing additions/suggestions (please!) but also to do a bit of boundary maintenance. By my estimation, assuming that the attached paper #1.3 is somewhere in the ballpark with respect to issues of concern to CS in the ICT4D space then I would guess that there is roughly at most a 20% overlap between the issues identified in this paper and what would conceivably be of interest in an Internet Governance perspective. Nothing wrong with that. It makes sense for folks to deal with the issues that they know and can comment on from a base of knowledge and experience. The second reason is to indicate two issues: 1. it should clearly articulated that the proposed IGF theme on the "Development Agenda..." is both necessary and sufficient for Internet Governance purposes that is the discussion is one concerning "A Development Agenda for Internet Governance" rather than "An Internet Governance Agenda for (ICT4)Development"... The second problem that I see is that there is no forum where the other aspects i.e. of the non-IG aspects of the Development Agenda can be discussed in an open, participative and multistakeholder manner as per the processes of the IGF. That isn't to say that the IGF should expand its mandate, as I've said so boringly times before, the range of actors who should be involved in the latter discussion is rather different (including and particularly from a CS perspective) from the range of actors currently involved in the IG discussions.. As a thought, it might be a very useful and usefully collegial initiative if the IGC caucus were to take some initiative in stimulating the creation of a counterpart ICT4D policy forum to operate in parallel with (and partially contributing to) the IGF. Best to all, Michael Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: February 21, 2008 3:57 AM To: Singh, Parminder; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] main themes On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder" wrote: Bill Would it not be better to use 'Swiss gov' instead of Swiss OfCom in the theme proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone. Parminder --------- Good point. Because it was OfCom specifically that offered to co-sponsor the DA workshop in Rio (just like other ministries that have done so in their own names for other workshops) and the new statement is signed by OfCom I didn't differentiate, but in fact the statement is labeled "Swiss Comments" so presumably it's ok to attribute it to the Swiss government generally. Also, in rushing out a text, I failed to note also the co-sponsorship of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; since the Brazilian government has publicly supported the DA idea (not just in Rio, but also in responding to a talk I gave at an UNCTAD meeting in Geneva) it would be dumb not to flag their support and invite their comment on the proposal. So how about we consider the revised texts below. Corrected a typo as well. BD 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and partners from other stakeholder groups on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ch1_15 Feb 1 . -1.3 LDCs-refs-mg.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62976 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Feb 21 13:48:54 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:48:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <200802211404.m1LE4TOd004859@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <33fe01c874ba$7237d5a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Thomas, Yes, I didn't quote the bit where Randy thinks everything will be fine in the end. It reminds me however of the other Bush (George) and Iraq again - it will all be fine, but we don’t know how yet. Let's just keep deploying more troops and it will all work out...... >Randy is very much saying: wake up people, we need to deploy this. Let's >figure out what needs to be done to get it deployed. The assumption being that we must continue with the rollout at all costs despite emerging problems and a great deal of evidence that it's not working as planned. Seminars all over the world, a whole movement underway, and just now we need to figure out what needs to be done around a range of issues? I agree with Izumi, this needs more study and clarity for those of us not involved in the standards setting world. There are technical issues to resolve, there are dubious benefits for anyone rolling out at this stage, and there are a range of social factors not being addressed. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] Sent: 22 February 2008 01:04 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Izumi AIZU' Subject: Re: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing "Ian Peter" writes: > Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war > in Iraq - no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part > started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no > support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] > victory will be next month. You also conveniently overlooked this opening line from the vary same charts you cite: > Reality Therapy > > We will transition to IPv6, get over it > The issues are when and how > Marketing fantasy is not helping us > actually deploy > This presentation may seem negative, > but think of it more as taking off the > rose colored glasses so we can see > what reality is so we can actually make > deployment decisions See the first bullet in particular. Randy is very much saying: wake up people, we need to deploy this. Let's figure out what needs to be done to get it deployed. Thomas No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008 10:26 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1292 - Release Date: 21/02/2008 16:09 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 21 14:29:51 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:29:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: <47BDD12F.5060506@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > Jeanette > >> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how >> greater clarity should be derived. > > Sorry, but I didn’t understand this. Do you mean that there is none > who is supposed to have that answer. This is just the > structure-in-the-air thing about IGF that many push for and I don’t > understand. No reason to be sorry. Yes, I mean that this is the type of question that is not factual and thus cannot be answered by anyone with the degree of authority the question seems to ask for. The question touches upon an issue that needs debate, for example in the context of a discussion on the future of the IGF. A multi-stakeholder workshop could feed into such a discussion. This is why I mentioned it as an example. No, I don't think a workshop could clarify this matter with ultimate authority - but neither can the MAG or the IGF chair. Regarding the second sentence, I know that all these functions are mentioned in the TA. But the TA talks about the Forum's mandate, not about a bureau's or MAG's mandate. In my view, the MAG is not in a position to carry out the Forum's mandate or to formally represent the Forum. In fact, it would instantly loose all legitimacy and the bit of trust it may enjoy if it tried to do such things. jeanette > > If CS is not asking questions, what is it doing. For us MAG is the > contact point for IGF (I have none other, and if you can think of > any, pl tell me)so we ask questions of it, without starting to worry > too much about how poor MAG will answer them. > > Now, if there is no process of getting clarity on any point, and no > one is supposed to have any degree of clarity on anything, why are we > making this statement all, and to whom.. The whole thing gives me > almost a ghostly scare. Who is MAG, who is IGF, who knows anything, > who decides anything... > > If we suggest an IGF workshop on this >> topic, we should say so. > > You think an IGF workshop can clarify this matter. I am interested, > pl tell me how. Do you mean if we hold a workshop where there is > absolute consensus, and no dissent at all, about a given set of roles > of MAG, then that will be it. We are not making tech standards in > IETF, we are a political public policy space. BTW, even if there were > by some strange luck absolute consensus among each and every person > at an IGF workshop, then still where does this consensus show - > -there are no outcomes documents. I don’t know what will be the means > to prove that consensus. > >> The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we >> want the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have >> consensus on that. > > Each of these terms, as you know, is from tunis agenda. And the > present draft text says that "to carry out some part of the mandate > which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving > recommendations’ etc..." > > So, there is no expansion of the role. On the other hand a > contraction of the role is the real issue. Our May 07 statement on > substantive themes for Rio, in the text on calling for a workshop on > the role and mandate of the IGF, did recognize all these as parts of > the mandate of the IGF. And it went as a rough consensus statement. > > Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann >> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:15 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Cc: Parminder Subject: >> Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG >> >> Adam, thank you for putting together this new version. I agree with >> all the suggested changes, in particular with deleting the >> paragraph in the section "role and structure of the MAG" that >> discusses the authority and identity of the MAG. >> >> In my view, the paragraph before (following below) could also be >> deleted or should be reformulated: >> >> We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any >> >>> substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, >>> to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving >>> recommendations' etc, MAG >> needs >>> to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. >> >> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how >> greater clarity should be derived. If we suggest an IGF workshop on >> this topic, we should say so. The second sentence I find >> problematic because it implies that we want the MAG to expand its >> role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on that. >> >> I support Adam's suggestion to include some of these issues in the >> stock taking session and accompanying workshops. The specific role >> of the MAG could be one of these issues. >> >> jeanette >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now >>> plain >> text. >>> I've edited and where important noted the new text. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring >>> [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] >>> >>> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion >>> that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum >>> for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This >>> has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand >>> and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of >>> a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet >>> through appropriate policy guidance as required. >>> >>> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new >>> forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right >>> direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take >>> some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this >>> unique global institution. >>> >>> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible >>> improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes >>> that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will >>> present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of >>> MAG. >>> >>> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is >>> basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We >>> appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to >>> MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through >>> two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >>> issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open >>> to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be >>> some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions >>> taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them >>> provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be >>> provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some >>> topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in >>> which case such topics should be listed, and summary of >>> discussions provided as appropriate. >>> >>> Membership of the MAG >>> >>> (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards >>> Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest >>> fresh text for >> this. >>> **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) >>> >>> [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year. >>> >>> * In the interest of transparency and understanding the >>> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the >>> MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested >>> group that person is associated >> with. >>> * Civil society has been under represented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, >>> this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a >>> fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At >>> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil >>> Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure >>> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the >>> stuff about numbers deleted] >>> >>> * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on >>> appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We >>> do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one >>> stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely >>> representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This >>> complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of >>> civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for >>> the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. >>> This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. >>> Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder >>> groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from >>> the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] >>> >>> >>> * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should >>> ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where >>> applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] >>> >>> [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] >>> >>> [end] >>> >>> >>> >>> Special Advisors and Chair >>> >>> * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and >>> criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration >>> for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the >>> selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] >>> >>> * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the >>> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one >>> chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to >>> nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in >>> context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF >>> meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of >>> work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present >>> arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new >>> arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >>> government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, >>> but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. >>> >>> Role and Structure of the MAG >>> >>> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right >>> time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be >>> appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to >>> play. >>> >>> * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with >>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the >>> opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to >>> make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF >>> is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable >>> it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. >>> >>> * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. >>> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used >>> for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. >>> >>> * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has >>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For >>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving >>> recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN >>> SG. >>> >>> * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to >>> do. It is something we should recommended in the other >>> contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) >>> part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated >>> workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also >>> required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like >>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >>> the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, >>> or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would >>> carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full >>> engagement of all stakeholders. >>> >>> * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report >>> should mention IGF activities and performance for the year >>> against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and >>> also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year >>> ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We >>> suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would >>> also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and >>> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the >>> Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should >>> be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need >>> is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. >>> >>> replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied >>> public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the >>> effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. >>> We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being >>> held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, >>> and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." >>> with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is >>> the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the >>> resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis >>> Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and >>> appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely >>> under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's >>> successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources >>> needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund >>> should be established to support the participation of people from >>> developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual >>> meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. >>> >>> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of >>> civil society from developing and least developed countries to >>> ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. >>> >>> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term >>> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official >>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important >>> aspect of the IGF. >>> >>> END >>> >>> Hope the suggested changes are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue >>>> of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings >>>> behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >>>> established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue >>>> on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different >>>> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each >>>> others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and >>>> politically engaged development of the Internet through >>>> appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new >>>> topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of >>>> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. >>>> However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >>>> steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global >>>> institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on >>>> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the >>>> themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we >>>> will present some suggestions regarding renewal and >>>> restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >>>> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and >>>> productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency >>>> taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that >>>> MAG should work through two elists ­ one open and other closed. >>>> Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally >>>> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do >>>> understand that there can be some circumstances requiring >>>> closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list >>>> should be listed, and summaries of them provided as >>>> appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of >>>> all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are >>>> expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case >>>> such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions >>>> provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be >>>> decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian >>>> formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh >>>> text for this. Special Advisors and Chair · The role >>>> and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as >>>> also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >>>> should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as >>>> well. · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the >>>> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one >>>> chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able >>>> to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be >>>> helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul >>>> IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the >>>> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in >>>> the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to >>>> this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, >>>> especially if the Indian government representative has already >>>> taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >>>> about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With >>>> the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time >>>> to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be >>>> appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to >>>> play. · One function is of course to make all >>>> arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s >>>> experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to >>>> be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? >>>> We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making >>>> processes to make them more effective. These are especially >>>> important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it >>>> is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · >>>> It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. >>>> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >>>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used >>>> for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · >>>> We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has >>>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For >>>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >>>> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving >>>> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >>>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN >>>> SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is >>>> also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like >>>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled >>>> by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever >>>> undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not >>>> MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done >>>> with full engagement of all stakeholders. · MAG should >>>> prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against >>>> relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also >>>> outline plans for the year ahead. · IGF should actively >>>> encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be >>>> truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out >>>> for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also >>>> expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support >>>> for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central >>>> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, >>>> the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting >>>> among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the >>>> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to >>>> some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund >>>> the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from >>>> developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful >>>> participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal >>>> that we all use the full term MAG at least for official >>>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important >>>> aspect of the IGF. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: >>>> Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM To: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] >>>> Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >>>> >>>> >>>> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that >>>> we are discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am >>>> still to incorporate changes like ­ removing the number 40, >>>> removing all numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) >>>> >>>> To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly >>>> like >>>> >>>> ³We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with >>>> respect to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG should >>>> work through two elists ­ one open and other closed. Since MAG >>>> discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions >>>> should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand >>>> that there can be some circumstances requiring closed >>>> discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be >>>> listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the >>>> same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face >>>> meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >>>> be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should >>>> be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate.² >>>> >>>> >>>> Now on this long discussion on the Œtech community¹ issue. >>>> There is enough opposition to getting into any kind of details >>>> on the matter of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >>>> different stakeholders, and views in favor of saying something >>>> simply like ­ CS is under-represented and this should be >>>> corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and >>>> construct appropriate language, but basically this is the >>>> point) >>>> >>>> Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key >>>> parts of the statement, the MAG membership part and the ŒMAG >>>> role and structure¹ part, and in addition some other specific >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> The part other than on MAG membership received a few early >>>> comment, and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me >>>> if I am wrong). Further comments may also be given. >>>> >>>> Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive >>>> parts. Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. >>>> But that has not received consensus and will not go in. >>>> However, the question that now comes up is (about the second >>>> substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the secretariat >>>> on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >>>> issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when >>>> we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it >>>> defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its >>>> Œclarity¹ as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know >>>> what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus¹s 07 statements >>>> for some clarity on these issues. >>>> >>>> And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how >>>> can we ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I >>>> would think self-selection will require the secretariat to >>>> recognize some parameters of what or who can go into a >>>> category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all >>>> categories, and some definition of what constitutes these >>>> categoriesŠ Should we then ask only for self selection for CS >>>> (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will quickly have >>>> to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and we >>>> will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included >>>> and who cant, and on what grounds etc) >>>> >>>> In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in >>>> this part of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely >>>> appreciated. >>>> >>>> Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I >>>> think) found no negative comment, but still not enough >>>> comments. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about >>>> 8 hours) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input >>>> on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio >>>> meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting >>>> firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive >>>> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to >>>> different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and >>>> appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a >>>> socially and politically engaged development of the Internet >>>> through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in >>>> new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of >>>> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. >>>> However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >>>> steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global >>>> institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on >>>> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the >>>> themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we >>>> will present some suggestions regarding renewal and >>>> restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >>>> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and >>>> productive. Membership of the MAG · We think that 40 is a >>>> good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be >>>> rotated every year. · The rules for membership of the MAG, >>>> including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, >>>> should be clearly established, and make open along with due >>>> justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >>>> multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided >>>> equally among governments, civil society and the business >>>> sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations >>>> involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be >>>> allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. · As >>>> per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international >>>> organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be >>>> entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at >>>> present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in >>>> this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot >>>> happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the >>>> same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is >>>> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in >>>> global governance. · Stakeholder representatives should be >>>> chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by >>>> stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to >>>> recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >>>> them, as completely representing the whole of that particular >>>> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, >>>> especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, >>>> and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority >>>> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done >>>> in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the >>>> self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept >>>> to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. · >>>> All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to >>>> adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, >>>> and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special >>>> Advisors and Chair · The role and necessity of the Special >>>> Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their >>>> selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the >>>> selection of Special Advisors as well. · We are of the >>>> opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of >>>> the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN >>>> SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, >>>> an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various >>>> issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we >>>> will like to understand the division of work and responsibility >>>> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be >>>> too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New >>>> Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government >>>> representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we >>>> can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and >>>> Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, >>>> it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the >>>> structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the >>>> functions that MAG is expected to play. · One function is >>>> of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. >>>> We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >>>> function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve >>>> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG >>>> must review its decision making processes to make them more >>>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve >>>> into something more than what it is today, to enable it to >>>> fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · It will be very >>>> useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should >>>> prepare for each main session and the set of workshops >>>> connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>>> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · We will >>>> also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any >>>> substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For >>>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >>>> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving >>>> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >>>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN >>>> SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is >>>> also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like >>>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled >>>> by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever >>>> undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not >>>> MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done >>>> with full engagement of all stakeholders. · An annual >>>> report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on >>>> Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing >>>> this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG >>>> prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all >>>> stakeholder members. · (Alternate text for the above point >>>> since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing >>>> very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF >>>> should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual >>>> report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities >>>> and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA >>>> which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year >>>> ahead. · IGF should actively encourage regional and >>>> national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out >>>> for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also >>>> expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support >>>> for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central >>>> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, >>>> the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting >>>> among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the >>>> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to >>>> some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund >>>> the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from >>>> developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful >>>> participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal >>>> that we all use the full term MAG at least for official >>>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important >>>> aspect of 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 21 17:09:17 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:09:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629692@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I agree with this too, with the added proviso that we call for reducing the size of the MAG. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > I agree with Bill. > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new > members of the MAG rotate in. > > Adam > > > > >Milton, > > > >FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it > does > >reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries. It would > >certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very > >significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current > mAG > >with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that > >this should be corrected in the refresh. Saying that gets across our > >immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who > besides > >CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should > be > >called. > > > >Cheers, > > > >BD > > > > > >On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >>> > >>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that > >>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they > >>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS? > >> > >> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too > >> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the > >> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as? > >> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they > >> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition > >> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS > reduces > >> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 17:14:01 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:14:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > About the multi-stakeholder organization of > workshops -- always intended to be a principle > not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society What those workshops need is not necessarily representation of multiple stakeholders, if by "stakeholder" we mean business, govt and civil society. What the workshops need, and badly, is a diversity of views. A panel on free expression, e.g., can always find a token businessperson or CS rep who favors (or opposes) freedom of expression in a specific policy context. The workshops are useless unless the leading and most articulate advocates of, say, more restrictive content regulation are on the _same_ panel as the leading and most articulate advocates of less content regulation. Then these workshops might lead to something. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 21 17:33:01 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:33:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629697@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Don't treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don't marginalize their > stake and crowd them out of MAG. And remember that the technical community > cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be > difficult for you to split between those communities. Voila. This is precisely the point. One can fully represent the Internet administration bodies and the technical experts by sticking to an equal division of business, govt and civil society. Patrik Faltstrom e.g. works for Cisco, he is clearly private sector. He is also a technical expert on DNS. He is also closely associated (I believe - or used to be) with the Swedish root zone operator. So maybe our point should be this: First, we make a point (as Parminder insists) of clarifying the definitions used. We point out that TC is not a useful category, it is really a cross-cutting concept that touches on all three of the main stakeholder groups. Second, we point out (following Ian Peter) that what many people refer to as TC are really administrative bodies that have a vested interest in specific governance regimes. Third, we note that while these Internet administrative bodies must be represented, both because of their governance role and their technical knowledge, we should not allow IGF or the MAG to become overweighted with their representatives, due to obvious conflict of interest issues. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 21 17:37:23 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629698@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Well, reviewing this debate in more detail, I agree with Jeanette, Adam and Bill that this is the point of consensus: > > I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for > > the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new members > > of the MAG rotate in. BUT: a) we need to argue for a simple business/govt/civil society categorization and b) I agree strongly with Parminder that we need to introduce more precise definitions regarding the TC/Internet administration organizations. That discussion does not need to implicate the representational shares. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 21 17:37:42 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:37:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629697@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <677F3B0A-0AD3-4A44-A7AD-018ADE612A7E@ras.eu.org> <035f01c873da$118765d0$34963170$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629697@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <007701c874da$5effe3e0$1cffaba0$@net> > Voila. This is precisely the point. One can fully represent the > Internet > administration bodies and the technical experts by sticking to an equal Quite a few people participate in this part of the process on their own money, and their own time, with employers that don't pay them to do this. Not specifically talking about Pat Faltstrom, here. > First, we make a point (as Parminder insists) of clarifying the > definitions used. We point out that TC is not a useful category, it is > really a cross-cutting concept that touches on all three of the main > stakeholder groups. Oh, but it is. It is a clear enough crosscut and doesn't quite fit into any of the stakeholder groups around here. Not very well at least, square peg in a round hole > Second, we point out (following Ian Peter) that what many people refer > to as TC are really administrative bodies that have a vested interest > in specific governance regimes. Some of it is that. But there is not much point in rehashing this particular argument. I voted for Ian's wording, I will stick to it. It is much less aggressively marginalizing than previous drafts have been. Thanks Suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 21 17:40:18 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:40:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629698@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47BC4225.8070901@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629698@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <007d01c874da$bbcb6220$33622660$@net> I think these two are the very points where there was strong disagreement with Parminder. So, that won't quite work towards consensus, I think. > a) we need to argue for a simple business/govt/civil society > categorization and > b) I agree strongly with Parminder that we need to introduce more > precise definitions regarding the TC/Internet administration > organizations. That discussion does not need to implicate the > representational shares. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 21 17:46:04 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:46:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> About the multi-stakeholder organization of >> workshops -- always intended to be a principle >> not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society > > What those workshops need is not necessarily representation of multiple > stakeholders, if by "stakeholder" we mean business, govt and civil > society. What the workshops need, and badly, is a diversity of views. I very much agree with that. It is not easy to enforce though. How would you prove that workshop organizers invited only token stakeholders of the other camps? What is more, if people are not sympathetic to your issue or approach, they may boycott it by refusing to co-organize or participate. While diversity of views supports the spirit of the IGF, in practice it is not always easy to implement. jeanette A > panel on free expression, e.g., can always find a token businessperson > or CS rep who favors (or opposes) freedom of expression in a specific > policy context. The workshops are useless unless the leading and most > articulate advocates of, say, more restrictive content regulation are on > the _same_ panel as the leading and most articulate advocates of less > content regulation. Then these workshops might lead to something. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 18:09:12 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:09:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one > quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) One quarter, eh? See below. > I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new > stakeholder group in the IGF. Bollocks. How is it progress for one particular group to secede from business and civil society (all the while claiming that it is part of both, just to hedge its bet) and gain privileged representation for itself? Does this mean that it would also be progress for any other new stakeholder group to make enough noise to get considered as a special group? Where does it end? > I have no problem with the > technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the > IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. The whole point of claiming to be a separate group in this case is to be over-represented. You prove it yourself above: You're willing to give parity in representation to a group that is, for the most part, a small subset of private sector or civil society, merely by virtue of the fact that they claim to be a distinct category of actor. So if I could somehow establish "Full Professors in snowy climes " as a new category they would get one fifth of the positions? This is a political game. Obviously. The claim that TC is "special" and apart from CS and PS was simply a way for incumbent I* governance organizations to maxmimize their voice and influence in the IGF. If recognition as a special group translated into _less_ representation, the same folks would suddenly claim not to be a distinct group and don the camouflage of civil society or private sector. They've got you covered either way, as McTim's none-too-subtle machinations on the list show. But, let's not forget the validity of Jeanette's comment that numbers on the MAG don't necessarily translate into influence, and not get hung up on qutoas. In our statement let's be principled and stick to Biz, Gov and CS (.com, .gov and .org) as the categories, let's recognize that individuals who work for Internet admin bodies can fall in any of those categories, let's not be naïve about the obvious self-interest these orgs may have in populating an IGF advisory body, and let's tell the truth about it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 18:27:49 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:27:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296AB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > I very much agree with that. It is not easy to enforce though. How would > you prove that workshop organizers invited only token stakeholders of > the other camps? It's actually easy to detect if one knows anything about the issues involved. The child pornography panels I attended in Rio were just ridiculously one-sided, as were the panels organized by the free expression advocates. This was immediately evident simply by looking at who the speakers were, what organizations they came from and what positions those orgs advocate. Likewise, the ICANN panel was completely one-sided and then its organizers had the temerity to complain about ICANN critics not showing up to engage with them. These are all obvious cases. All it would take is to slap down a few of those and the message would get out and behavior would change. > What is more, if people are not sympathetic to your > issue or approach, they may boycott it by refusing to co-organize or > participate. IGP has some experience in attempting, and often succeeding, in luring people into balanced discussions of controversial issues. We did it with both the DNSSEC panel and the "public policy" panel in Rio. We did it with the root panel in Athens. It can be done. Anyway, if a clueful MAG or IGF Secretariat was willing to challenge powerful organizations to enter into the spirit of the Forum it would not be difficult to nip in the bud any attempts to boycott. Let's say WIPO refuses to participate in a controversial panel about global IPR governance and the role of WIPO. They should get a call from the Secretariat who says, "hey, what's up with that? You should be on this panel, its about your issues." That scenario doesn't seem unrealistic to me. The Secretariat should have the knowledge and the cojones to do that. Long term it would increase respect for the IGF. Far too much emphasis has been placed on multistakeholder "sponsorship" or co-organization of workshops, and far too little attention paid to diversity of viewpoints and substantive engagement within the panels. As we both know, Jeanette, people waste a lot of time grabbing co-sponsors who add little value simply because that is all the IGF Secretariat looks at in the critical early stages when it is rationing workshop slots. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 21 19:23:54 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:53:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47BDD12F.5060506@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080222002440.7125B6788A@smtp1.electricembers.net> . Yes, I mean that this is the type of question > that is not factual and thus cannot be answered by anyone with the > degree of authority the question seems to ask for. The question touches > upon an issue that needs debate. Sure, in that case, I will clarify that the question only seeks greater clarity, to the extent it can be provided. It puts the question on the table. There are many questions that cannot be answered with complete authority by anyone, but can this then stop people from raising the question at all. And especially CS whose main task I understand is to ask questions... As for seeking a workshop on this issue, we are seeking it separately, and we did hold a workshop at Rio. Where to from here... just carry on holding workshops. Why would we be so defensive about a simple question... And the question is, to quote the draft, "We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG". When we were discussing MAG stakeholder/ representation categories you had asked us to move on, and I quote you "My point is that the discussion of the statement should not focus any longer on this aspect but move on to other paragraphs. What I find most crcuial to discuss is the role of the MAG beyond advising the SG and the topics we propose for the next IGF meeting." But, if I get it right, now you are saying lets not discuss the role of MAG beyond advising the SG... In my view, the MAG is not in a > position to carry out the Forum's mandate or to formally represent the > Forum. In fact, it would instantly loose all legitimacy and the bit of > trust it may enjoy if it tried to do such things. Has MAG no role in carrying out the mandate... Who and how will it then be carried out then. Is it your views that some crucial parts of the mandate need not be carried out at all. If so then it is just a matter of political preference, not to find value in certain parts of the mandate. I see great value in those parts, and as I said, in our May 07 statement we did identify these value adding parts. Parminder . > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:00 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > Parminder wrote: > > Jeanette > > > >> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how > >> greater clarity should be derived. > > > > Sorry, but I didn’t understand this. Do you mean that there is none > > who is supposed to have that answer. This is just the > > structure-in-the-air thing about IGF that many push for and I don’t > > understand. > > No reason to be sorry. Yes, I mean that this is the type of question > that is not factual and thus cannot be answered by anyone with the > degree of authority the question seems to ask for. The question touches > upon an issue that needs debate, for example in the context of a > discussion on the future of the IGF. A multi-stakeholder workshop could > feed into such a discussion. This is why I mentioned it as an example. > No, I don't think a workshop could clarify this matter with ultimate > authority - but neither can the MAG or the IGF chair. > > Regarding the second sentence, I know that all these functions are > mentioned in the TA. But the TA talks about the Forum's mandate, not > about a bureau's or MAG's mandate. In my view, the MAG is not in a > position to carry out the Forum's mandate or to formally represent the > Forum. In fact, it would instantly loose all legitimacy and the bit of > trust it may enjoy if it tried to do such things. > > jeanette > > > > > > If CS is not asking questions, what is it doing. For us MAG is the > > contact point for IGF (I have none other, and if you can think of > > any, pl tell me)so we ask questions of it, without starting to worry > > too much about how poor MAG will answer them. > > > > Now, if there is no process of getting clarity on any point, and no > > one is supposed to have any degree of clarity on anything, why are we > > making this statement all, and to whom.. The whole thing gives me > > almost a ghostly scare. Who is MAG, who is IGF, who knows anything, > > who decides anything... > > > > If we suggest an IGF workshop on this > >> topic, we should say so. > > > > You think an IGF workshop can clarify this matter. I am interested, > > pl tell me how. Do you mean if we hold a workshop where there is > > absolute consensus, and no dissent at all, about a given set of roles > > of MAG, then that will be it. We are not making tech standards in > > IETF, we are a political public policy space. BTW, even if there were > > by some strange luck absolute consensus among each and every person > > at an IGF workshop, then still where does this consensus show - > > -there are no outcomes documents. I don’t know what will be the means > > to prove that consensus. > > > >> The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we > >> want the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have > >> consensus on that. > > > > Each of these terms, as you know, is from tunis agenda. And the > > present draft text says that "to carry out some part of the mandate > > which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving > > recommendations’ etc..." > > > > So, there is no expansion of the role. On the other hand a > > contraction of the role is the real issue. Our May 07 statement on > > substantive themes for Rio, in the text on calling for a workshop on > > the role and mandate of the IGF, did recognize all these as parts of > > the mandate of the IGF. And it went as a rough consensus statement. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann > >> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:15 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Cc: Parminder Subject: > >> Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > >> > >> Adam, thank you for putting together this new version. I agree with > >> all the suggested changes, in particular with deleting the > >> paragraph in the section "role and structure of the MAG" that > >> discusses the authority and identity of the MAG. > >> > >> In my view, the paragraph before (following below) could also be > >> deleted or should be reformulated: > >> > >> We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > >> > >>> substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, > >>> to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > >>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > >>> recommendations' etc, MAG > >> needs > >>> to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that > >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > >> > >> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how > >> greater clarity should be derived. If we suggest an IGF workshop on > >> this topic, we should say so. The second sentence I find > >> problematic because it implies that we want the MAG to expand its > >> role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on that. > >> > >> I support Adam's suggestion to include some of these issues in the > >> stock taking session and accompanying workshops. The specific role > >> of the MAG could be one of these issues. > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> Adam Peake wrote: > >>> Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now > >>> plain > >> text. > >>> I've edited and where important noted the new text. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of > >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring > >>> [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] > >>> > >>> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion > >>> that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum > >>> for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This > >>> has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand > >>> and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of > >>> a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet > >>> through appropriate policy guidance as required. > >>> > >>> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new > >>> forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right > >>> direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take > >>> some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this > >>> unique global institution. > >>> > >>> In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible > >>> improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes > >>> that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will > >>> present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of > >>> MAG. > >>> > >>> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is > >>> basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We > >>> appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to > >>> MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through > >>> two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses > >>> issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open > >>> to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be > >>> some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions > >>> taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them > >>> provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be > >>> provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some > >>> topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in > >>> which case such topics should be listed, and summary of > >>> discussions provided as appropriate. > >>> > >>> Membership of the MAG > >>> > >>> (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards > >>> Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest > >>> fresh text for > >> this. > >>> **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) > >>> > >>> [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One > >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > >>> > >>> * In the interest of transparency and understanding the > >>> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the > >>> MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested > >>> group that person is associated > >> with. > >>> * Civil society has been under represented in the > >>> multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, > >>> this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a > >>> fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At > >>> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil > >>> Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure > >>> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the > >>> stuff about numbers deleted] > >>> > >>> * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on > >>> appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We > >>> do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one > >>> stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely > >>> representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This > >>> complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of > >>> civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for > >>> the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. > >>> This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. > >>> Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder > >>> groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from > >>> the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] > >>> > >>> > >>> * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should > >>> ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > >>> applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] > >>> > >>> [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > >>> > >>> [end] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Special Advisors and Chair > >>> > >>> * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and > >>> criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration > >>> for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the > >>> selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] > >>> > >>> * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > >>> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one > >>> chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to > >>> nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in > >>> context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF > >>> meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of > >>> work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present > >>> arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new > >>> arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > >>> government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, > >>> but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. > >>> > >>> Role and Structure of the MAG > >>> > >>> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right > >>> time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be > >>> appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to > >>> play. > >>> > >>> * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the > >>> annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with > >>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the > >>> opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to > >>> make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF > >>> is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable > >>> it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > >>> > >>> * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. > >>> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used > >>> for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > >>> > >>> * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has > >>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > >>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > >>> recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > >>> SG. > >>> > >>> * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to > >>> do. It is something we should recommended in the other > >>> contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) > >>> part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated > >>> workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also > >>> required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like > >>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by > >>> the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, > >>> or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would > >>> carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full > >>> engagement of all stakeholders. > >>> > >>> * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report > >>> should mention IGF activities and performance for the year > >>> against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and > >>> also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year > >>> ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We > >>> suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would > >>> also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > >>> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the > >>> Forum beyond 2010. > >>> > >>> * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > >>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should > >>> be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need > >>> is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. > >>> > >>> replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied > >>> public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the > >>> effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. > >>> We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being > >>> held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, > >>> and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." > >>> with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is > >>> the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the > >>> resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis > >>> Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and > >>> appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely > >>> under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's > >>> successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources > >>> needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund > >>> should be established to support the participation of people from > >>> developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual > >>> meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > >>> > >>> IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of > >>> civil society from developing and least developed countries to > >>> ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. > >>> > >>> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term > >>> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official > >>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >>> aspect of the IGF. > >>> > >>> END > >>> > >>> Hope the suggested changes are clear. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input on issue > >>>> of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio meetings > >>>> behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly > >>>> established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue > >>>> on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different > >>>> stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each > >>>> others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and > >>>> politically engaged development of the Internet through > >>>> appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new > >>>> topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > >>>> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. > >>>> However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > >>>> steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global > >>>> institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on > >>>> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the > >>>> themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we > >>>> will present some suggestions regarding renewal and > >>>> restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > >>>> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and > >>>> productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency > >>>> taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that > >>>> MAG should work through two elists ­ one open and other closed. > >>>> Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally > >>>> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do > >>>> understand that there can be some circumstances requiring > >>>> closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list > >>>> should be listed, and summaries of them provided as > >>>> appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of > >>>> all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are > >>>> expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case > >>>> such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions > >>>> provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be > >>>> decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > >>>> formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh > >>>> text for this. Special Advisors and Chair · The role > >>>> and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as > >>>> also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity > >>>> should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as > >>>> well. · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > >>>> multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one > >>>> chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able > >>>> to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be > >>>> helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul > >>>> IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > >>>> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in > >>>> the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to > >>>> this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, > >>>> especially if the Indian government representative has already > >>>> taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > >>>> about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With > >>>> the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time > >>>> to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be > >>>> appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to > >>>> play. · One function is of course to make all > >>>> arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG¹s > >>>> experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to > >>>> be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? > >>>> We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making > >>>> processes to make them more effective. These are especially > >>>> important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it > >>>> is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · > >>>> It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. > >>>> These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > >>>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used > >>>> for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · > >>>> We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has > >>>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >>>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > >>>> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving > >>>> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >>>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > >>>> SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is > >>>> also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like > >>>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled > >>>> by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever > >>>> undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not > >>>> MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done > >>>> with full engagement of all stakeholders. · MAG should > >>>> prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > >>>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against > >>>> relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also > >>>> outline plans for the year ahead. · IGF should actively > >>>> encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be > >>>> truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > >>>> for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also > >>>> expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support > >>>> for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central > >>>> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, > >>>> the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting > >>>> among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > >>>> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to > >>>> some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund > >>>> the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from > >>>> developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful > >>>> participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal > >>>> that we all use the full term MAG at least for official > >>>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >>>> aspect of the IGF. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: > >>>> Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM To: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] > >>>> Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that > >>>> we are discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am > >>>> still to incorporate changes like ­ removing the number 40, > >>>> removing all numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) > >>>> > >>>> To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly > >>>> like > >>>> > >>>> ³We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with > >>>> respect to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG should > >>>> work through two elists ­ one open and other closed. Since MAG > >>>> discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions > >>>> should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand > >>>> that there can be some circumstances requiring closed > >>>> discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be > >>>> listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the > >>>> same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face > >>>> meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to > >>>> be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should > >>>> be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate.² > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Now on this long discussion on the Œtech community¹ issue. > >>>> There is enough opposition to getting into any kind of details > >>>> on the matter of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis > >>>> different stakeholders, and views in favor of saying something > >>>> simply like ­ CS is under-represented and this should be > >>>> corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and > >>>> construct appropriate language, but basically this is the > >>>> point) > >>>> > >>>> Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key > >>>> parts of the statement, the MAG membership part and the ŒMAG > >>>> role and structure¹ part, and in addition some other specific > >>>> issues. > >>>> > >>>> The part other than on MAG membership received a few early > >>>> comment, and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me > >>>> if I am wrong). Further comments may also be given. > >>>> > >>>> Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive > >>>> parts. Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. > >>>> But that has not received consensus and will not go in. > >>>> However, the question that now comes up is (about the second > >>>> substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the secretariat > >>>> on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of > >>>> issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when > >>>> we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it > >>>> defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its > >>>> Œclarity¹ as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know > >>>> what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus¹s 07 statements > >>>> for some clarity on these issues. > >>>> > >>>> And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how > >>>> can we ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I > >>>> would think self-selection will require the secretariat to > >>>> recognize some parameters of what or who can go into a > >>>> category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all > >>>> categories, and some definition of what constitutes these > >>>> categoriesŠ Should we then ask only for self selection for CS > >>>> (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will quickly have > >>>> to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and we > >>>> will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included > >>>> and who cant, and on what grounds etc) > >>>> > >>>> In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in > >>>> this part of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely > >>>> appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I > >>>> think) found no negative comment, but still not enough > >>>> comments. > >>>> > >>>> Parminder > >>>> > >>>> (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about > >>>> 8 hours) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s input > >>>> on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring With Athens and Rio > >>>> meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting > >>>> firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive > >>>> dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to > >>>> different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and > >>>> appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a > >>>> socially and politically engaged development of the Internet > >>>> through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in > >>>> new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of > >>>> interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. > >>>> However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > >>>> steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global > >>>> institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on > >>>> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the > >>>> themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we > >>>> will present some suggestions regarding renewal and > >>>> restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > >>>> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and > >>>> productive. Membership of the MAG · We think that 40 is a > >>>> good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be > >>>> rotated every year. · The rules for membership of the MAG, > >>>> including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, > >>>> should be clearly established, and make open along with due > >>>> justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > >>>> multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided > >>>> equally among governments, civil society and the business > >>>> sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations > >>>> involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be > >>>> allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. · As > >>>> per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international > >>>> organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be > >>>> entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at > >>>> present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in > >>>> this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot > >>>> happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the > >>>> same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is > >>>> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in > >>>> global governance. · Stakeholder representatives should be > >>>> chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by > >>>> stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to > >>>> recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > >>>> them, as completely representing the whole of that particular > >>>> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, > >>>> especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, > >>>> and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority > >>>> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done > >>>> in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the > >>>> self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept > >>>> to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. · > >>>> All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to > >>>> adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, > >>>> and, where applicable, special interest groups. Special > >>>> Advisors and Chair · The role and necessity of the Special > >>>> Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their > >>>> selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the > >>>> selection of Special Advisors as well. · We are of the > >>>> opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of > >>>> the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > >>>> SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, > >>>> an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various > >>>> issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we > >>>> will like to understand the division of work and responsibility > >>>> between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be > >>>> too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New > >>>> Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government > >>>> representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we > >>>> can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and > >>>> Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, > >>>> it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the > >>>> structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the > >>>> functions that MAG is expected to play. · One function is > >>>> of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. > >>>> We must reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this > >>>> function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve > >>>> the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG > >>>> must review its decision making processes to make them more > >>>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve > >>>> into something more than what it is today, to enable it to > >>>> fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · It will be very > >>>> useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should > >>>> prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > >>>> connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > >>>> managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · We will > >>>> also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > >>>> substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For > >>>> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > >>>> Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying issues¹, Œgiving > >>>> recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It > >>>> looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > >>>> SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is > >>>> also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like > >>>> assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled > >>>> by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever > >>>> undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not > >>>> MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done > >>>> with full engagement of all stakeholders. · An annual > >>>> report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on > >>>> Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing > >>>> this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG > >>>> prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all > >>>> stakeholder members. · (Alternate text for the above point > >>>> since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing > >>>> very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF > >>>> should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual > >>>> report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities > >>>> and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA > >>>> which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >>>> ahead. · IGF should actively encourage regional and > >>>> national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out > >>>> for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also > >>>> expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support > >>>> for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central > >>>> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, > >>>> the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting > >>>> among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the > >>>> February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to > >>>> some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund > >>>> the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from > >>>> developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful > >>>> participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal > >>>> that we all use the full term MAG at least for official > >>>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important > >>>> aspect of 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 19:23:54 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:53:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080221163104.36813A6C93@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080222002441.A7EBAA6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> > In the present formulation of McTim, we do not say the this fourth group > are > stakeholders (Meryem seemed to want it that way, but I am fine with > calling > them stakeholders as well, and if remember right, not very sure though, > Meryem, though with reservations, had ok-ed it)but we do say they need to > be > represented. I remember that one issue that members pointed out was that the term 'international organization' has this problem that all the implicated organization are not international. McTim formulation now just says, " organizations having an important role in the > > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > policies..." So, that problem gets addressed here. I also had suggested the term Internet organizations instead, but McTim's more descriptive term adapting from TA language is fine for the present purpose. While having a problem with the term 'international' we must also remember that we ourselves insist in our statement that IGF's main remit is global issues (yes, CS may prefer global to international)and also that most of these organizations have some global form of representation which can be included in the 'international/ global category. Just a couple of thoughts that occurred to me, reflecting on what were the main points of difference in that long discussion. I may be wrong though, and there may have been some other more important points. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:01 PM > To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > McTim > > > Looks like Adam has beaten me to the punch, and I am happy to accept > > his more eloquent text. > > On the other hand, I am happier to accept yours. :) > > Well, Adam when we are asking MAG to name stakeholder groups of selected > MAG > members, why dont we name the fourth stakeholder group as well. And yes, I > am very clear that they need to have appropriate representation in the > MAG. > > (So, Suresh, it really is not that I have been trying to offload anyone's > representation - which you continue to believe. I never asked for it once. > I > just want clarity on the nature of the groups.) > > In the present formulation of McTim, we do not say the this fourth group > are > stakeholders (Meryem seemed to want it that way, but I am fine with > calling > them stakeholders as well, and if remember right, not very sure though, > Meryem, though with reservations, had ok-ed it)but we do say they need to > be > represented. > > Would allay misgivings of this group that CS wants them off MAG or any > such > thing. We most definitely don't. > > I do think that the issue in fact is simpler than the long discussion made > it out to be. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:51 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > > > > > > > Membership of the MAG > > > > > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian > > > formulation failed, > > > > How's this: > > > > We reiterate our previously stated dissatisfaction with the limited > > representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory > > Group, as full civil society representation is necessary to ensure > > legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. CS is > > underrepresented, we (and others) agree, and we want to support the > > remedying of that anomaly. > > > > We also note that organizations having an important role in the > > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > policies should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society > > participation. > > > > -------------------- > > > > The above has some of Ian's, some of Lee's and some of our previous > > text intermingled. > > > > Doh! > > > > Looks like Adam has beaten me to the punch, and I am happy to accept > > his more eloquent text. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 21 19:56:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:26:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <007d01c874da$bbcb6220$33622660$@net> Message-ID: <20080222005654.009DF67825@smtp1.electricembers.net> >I think these two are the very points where there was strong disagreement with Parminder. > So, that won't quite work towards consensus, I think. > > > a) we need to argue for a simple business/govt/civil society > > categorization and > > b) I agree strongly with Parminder that we need to introduce more > > precise definitions regarding the TC/Internet administration > > organizations. That discussion does not need to implicate the > > representational shares. > Ok, but to not do first, a simple three way categorization ,we need to say which is the other group. Name and describe it.. that's what we are asking for. And if this is a cross cutting group - which admits of a three way simple classification, which you don't seem to agree to - then we say so, or if this is a set of new organizations involved with so and so.... we say that. And if both groups, the cross cutting tech one, and these set of orgs, are important to be recognized and mentioned we say that as well. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:10 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > I think these two are the very points where there was strong disagreement > with Parminder. > > So, that won't quite work towards consensus, I think. > > > a) we need to argue for a simple business/govt/civil society > > categorization and > > b) I agree strongly with Parminder that we need to introduce more > > precise definitions regarding the TC/Internet administration > > organizations. That discussion does not need to implicate the > > representational shares. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 21 20:00:35 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:00:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing In-Reply-To: <200802211409.m1LE9sNK007194@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <2ba101c873fe$f7a2d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <954259bd0802210244h7ff040dcn80015e8d00ea45a7@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0802210325v2849e620i321f462f6ec62f24@mail.gmail.com> <200802211409.m1LE9sNK007194@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: I agree with Thomas in that my original intention was, first of all, to share good information on the issue among us. I do not think to have detailed technical discussion HERE is that suitable. Many people, like me, are not experts in IP technology, and may be just confused if we hear too much details. What I liked to see was/is a well-informed dialogue on policy matters. Of course, that require accurate knowledge on facts around technology, and I welcome the contributions to lead to that direction. If Thomas and others could provide such pointers that will be very valuable I think. But, going into details is like "seeing the woods but not the forests" as we say in Japanese. best, izumi 2008/2/21, Thomas Narten : > > > IPv6 DOES have variable length in the architecture. > > > IPv6 does not have variable length addresses. But this list hardly > seems an appropriate place to have a discussion about such technical > details. > > Really! > > > Thomas -------------- 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 Fri Feb 22 00:11:45 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:11:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > > > Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder > > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > > between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one > > quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) > > > One quarter, eh? See below. > > > I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new > > stakeholder group in the IGF. > > Bollocks. How is it progress for one particular group to secede from business and civil society (all the while claiming that it is part of both, just to hedge its bet) and gain privileged representation for itself? Can you send evidence/links that show there is a monolithic "claim" here? Does this mean that it would also be progress for any other new stakeholder group to make enough noise to get considered as a special group? Where does it end? > > > > I have no problem with the > > technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the > > IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. > If you limit to 3 SH groups, you run into the problem that reps of I* orgs CAN take seats from all 3 SH groupings, and then you get the over-representation AND a reduction of seats for "broader CS". > The whole point of claiming to be a separate group in this case is to be over-represented. You prove it yourself above: You're willing to give parity in representation to a group that is, for the most part, a small subset of private sector or civil society, merely by virtue of the fact that they claim to be a distinct category of actor. So if I could somehow establish "Full Professors in snowy climes " as a new category they would get one fifth of the positions? > If an only if "Full Professors in snowy climes " did the heavy lifting of EC3 that is currently done by the hundreds of orgs that do these tasks now. This is a red herring, an amusing one, but still a "rood haring", jongen, jongen, jongen. (How's your Dutch coming along?) > This is a political game. Obviously. The claim that TC is "special" and apart from CS and PS was simply a way for incumbent I* governance organizations to maxmimize their voice and influence in the IGF. If recognition as a special group translated into _less_ representation, If we don't recognise them (which is the status quo AFAICS), they could theoretically take MORE seats than they currently have now. I have argued that this outcome would not be good for what you folks call CS. >the same folks would suddenly claim not to be a distinct group and don the camouflage of civil society or private sector. They've got you covered either way, as McTim's none-too-subtle machinations on the list show. > If by machinations, you mean "firmly held beliefs based on years of personal observation and participation", then I am guilty as charged Senator. I am a card-carrying member of the Internet Technical community (many technical communities actually), and proud of it! > But, let's not forget the validity of Jeanette's comment that numbers on the MAG don't necessarily translate into influence, and not get hung up on qutoas. In our statement let's be principled and stick to Biz, Gov and CS (.com, .gov and .org) as the categories, let's recognize that individuals who work for Internet admin bodies can fall in any of those categories, let's not be naïve about the obvious self-interest these orgs may have in populating an IGF advisory body, and let's tell the truth about it. The interest is in fulfilling the EC aspects of the TA. I don't understand this at all, first y'all say "where is the EC", and while we are discussing what is clearly EC by these orgs, you say "they are overrepresented. You can't blame folks for wholeheartedly embracing EC, can you?? I agree with the majority, Jeannette, Suresh, Adam, Ian, Bill, et. al, let's not mention numbers or make a statement that pushes away any folk. Let's just say that we would like more CS representation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 22 03:58:55 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:58:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles In-Reply-To: <20080221161736.18A1F6787F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 2/21/08 5:17 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> I think we should recommend including discussion >> of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the >> way forward" session and some associated >> workshops. Important we start looking at what's >> been achieved and to prepare for discussion about >> the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond >> 2010. There could be a call for workshops on >> topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not >> the subject of other sessions) and the second in >> the "branded" series. > > Yes, like other main session it should also be intensely prepared for by a > WG, and have associated set of workshops, with role and mandate of IGF > workshop as one of them. Parminder Precisely what I had in mind in saying we shouldn't propose a new thematic main session on this. Try to turn the "Taking stock and the way forward" session into something meaningful, do a branded IGC ws on the mandate, and have the results from the ws feed directly into the former. This didn't really happen last time, it was decided (but not notified) at the 13th hour that ws speakers could not be on the rather stock stock session. The two should be linked. BTW, speaking of the IGC's "role and mandate of the IGF" WS in Rio, its' worth recalling that the experience with this really demonstrated the problem with the MS sponsorship requirement. If Lee hadn't managed to get Jamaica as a silent partner it'd have been CS only. Despite many many time consuming outreach efforts by Parminder, Adam, myself, others---nobody would touch it, some opposed it. In the end, it was a very productive and well attended session that didn't make the sky fall, but the irrational paranoia it elicited before the fact was striking. As discussed last year, it's highly problematic to demand that WS organizers get diverse MS sponsorship when most governments, intergovernmental organizations, and companies are very reluctant to sign on and be officially linked to anything that's not completely anodyne. That includes players that are represented on the mAG, (interestingly enough). I think it'd be good if the paragraph on this point not only said that diversity of views and panelists is more important than sponsors, but that the mAG should state clear guidelines rather than make up the rules' interpretation on the fly, it's very unfair to organizers. Bill PS: I was asked offline by a lurking reader why our statement refers to the MAG. The official name is the AG, no? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 04:07:45 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:07:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] main themes: 4. A Development Agenda for In-Reply-To: <02cf01c874ab$ccc39ae0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Hi Michael, Not to worry, as I told you off line, there is absolutely no interest in mission creeping into ICT4D. In fact, this was made explicit in the Rio WS description, in the WS itself, and in the current main session proposal. This is about IG per se. While I¹ve not detected any confusion on the point in many conversations with participants, sure, the point can be underscored in the consultation. Best, Bill On 2/21/08 6:04 PM, "Michael Gurstein" wrote: > Colleagues, > > As previously I come here not to praise.... > > I don't find anything objectionable in Bill/Parminder's phrasing re: #4 > below... > > However, in the interests of avoiding mission creep and in CS solidarity I'm > attaching a draft document that I've been responsible for preparing for the CS > contribution in advance of the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. > > This document deals with "ICT4D" issues and is meant to be somewhat > comprehensive with respect to those issues from a CS perspective. Comments > and suggestions are welcomed. (They could be addressed to me directly > (probably better off line) or added to the wiki http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org > . This document is part of one chapter in > the broader statement that is being put together by Katitza Rodriguez of > Public Voices.) > > I'm sending this to this list for two reasons... One to get expert feedback > and content/referencing additions/suggestions (please!) but also to do a bit > of boundary maintenance. > > By my estimation, assuming that the attached paper #1.3 is somewhere in the > ballpark with respect to issues of concern to CS in the ICT4D space then I > would guess that there is roughly at most a 20% overlap between the issues > identified in this paper and what would conceivably be of interest in an > Internet Governance perspective. > > Nothing wrong with that. It makes sense for folks to deal with the issues that > they know and can comment on from a base of knowledge and experience. > > The second reason is to indicate two issues: > 1. it should clearly articulated that the proposed IGF theme on the > "Development Agenda..." is both necessary and sufficient for Internet > Governance purposes that is the discussion is one concerning "A Development > Agenda for Internet Governance" rather than "An Internet Governance Agenda for > (ICT4)Development"... > > The second problem that I see is that there is no forum where the other > aspects i.e. of the non-IG aspects of the Development Agenda can be discussed > in an open, participative and multistakeholder manner as per the processes of > the IGF. > > That isn't to say that the IGF should expand its mandate, as I've said so > boringly times before, the range of actors who should be involved in the > latter discussion is rather different (including and particularly from a CS > perspective) from the range of actors currently involved in the IG > discussions.. > > As a thought, it might be a very useful and usefully collegial initiative if > the IGC caucus were to take some initiative in stimulating the creation of a > counterpart ICT4D policy forum to operate in parallel with (and partially > contributing to) the IGF. > > Best to all, > > Michael Gurstein > > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: February 21, 2008 3:57 AM >> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] main themes >> >> On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >> >>> Bill >>> >> Would it not be better to use ŒSwiss gov¹ instead of Swiss OfCom in the >> theme proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone. >> Parminder >> >> --------- >> >> Good point. Because it was OfCom specifically that offered to co-sponsor >> the DA workshop in Rio (just like other ministries that have done so in >> their own names for other workshops) and the new statement is signed by >> OfCom I didn¹t differentiate, but in fact the statement is labeled ³Swiss >> Comments² so presumably it¹s ok to attribute it to the Swiss government >> generally. Also, in rushing out a text, I failed to note also the >> co-sponsorship of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; since the >> Brazilian government has publicly supported the DA idea (not just in Rio, but >> also in responding to a talk I gave at an UNCTAD meeting in Geneva) it would >> be dumb not to flag their support and invite their comment on the proposal. >> So how about we consider the revised texts below. Corrected a typo as well. >> >> BD >> >> >>> 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >>> >>> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. >>> Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio >>> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, >>> focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms >>> and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society >>> actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications, the >>> Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and partners from other stakeholder >>> groups on, ³Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.² The >>> workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of >>> analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations >>> into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this >>> workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being >>> pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept >>> should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of >>> keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the >>> Swiss proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group >>> that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >>> >>> >>> 5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS >>> process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, >>> on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet >>> Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up >>> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet >>> Governance Caucus has consistently programmatic activity in this arena, and >>> hence welcomes the Swiss statement that implementation of the WSIS >>> principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF >>> discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we >>> propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles >>> of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most >>> readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session >>> could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, >>> and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > -------------- 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 Feb 22 05:09:28 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:09:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: >Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>>About the multi-stakeholder organization of >>>workshops -- always intended to be a principle >>>not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society >> >>What those workshops need is not necessarily representation of multiple >>stakeholders, if by "stakeholder" we mean business, govt and civil >>society. What the workshops need, and badly, is a diversity of views. > >I very much agree with that. Also agree. I don't see any problem in sticking with the multistakeholder principles, just emphasizing the importance of diversity of views. Ideally they go hand in hand. >It is not easy to enforce though. How would you prove that workshop >organizers invited only token stakeholders of the other camps? If the selection process starts early (and we can this year, could not on 2006 and 7) then having people submit proposals, merge/develop them, and then having those proposals available for some public review might help. Adam >What is more, if people are not sympathetic to your issue or >approach, they may boycott it by refusing to co-organize or >participate. While diversity of views supports the spirit of the >IGF, in practice it is not always easy to implement. >jeanette > A >>panel on free expression, e.g., can always find a token businessperson >>or CS rep who favors (or opposes) freedom of expression in a specific >>policy context. The workshops are useless unless the leading and most >>articulate advocates of, say, more restrictive content regulation are on >>the _same_ panel as the leading and most articulate advocates of less >>content regulation. Then these workshops might lead to something. >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 22 05:10:56 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:10:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> >> Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members >> between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one >> quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) > >One quarter, eh? See below. > >> I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new >> stakeholder group in the IGF. > >Bollocks. Not. >How is it progress for one particular group to >secede from business and civil society (all the >while claiming that it is part of both, just to >hedge its bet) and gain privileged >representation for itself? Does this mean that >it would also be progress for any other new >stakeholder group to make enough noise to get >considered as a special group? Where does it end? > >> I have no problem with the >> technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the >> IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. > >The whole point of claiming to be a separate >group in this case is to be over-represented. >You prove it yourself above: You're willing to >give parity in representation to a group that >is, for the most part, a small subset of private >sector or civil society, merely by virtue of the >fact that they claim to be a distinct category >of actor. So if I could somehow establish "Full >Professors in snowy climes " as a new category >they would get one fifth of the positions? Except for the one fifth, why not? Why wouldn't GigaNet, for example, aspire to that? How's GigaNet represented in the IGF at the moment... not so bad. >This is a political game. Obviously. The claim >that TC is "special" and apart from CS and PS >was simply a way for incumbent I* governance >organizations to maxmimize their voice and >influence in the IGF. If recognition as a >special group translated into _less_ >representation, the same folks would suddenly >claim not to be a distinct group and don the >camouflage of civil society or private sector. >They've got you covered either way, as McTim's >none-too-subtle machinations on the list show. > >But, let's not forget the validity of Jeanette's >comment that numbers on the MAG don't >necessarily translate into influence, and not >get hung up on qutoas. In our statement let's be >principled and stick to Biz, Gov and CS (.com, >.gov and .org) as the categories, er... Bollocks. No better way to screw up CS discussions over the coming year. And we shouldn't run the risk of games that might result. CS might be recognized as not being fully clothed (think that might have been part of what Danny was getting at.) Adam >let's recognize that individuals who work for >Internet admin bodies can fall in any of those >categories, let's not be naïve about the obvious >self-interest these orgs may have in populating >an IGF advisory body, and let's tell the truth >about it. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 05:15:25 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:15:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On 2/21/08 5:17 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > snipped >Bill > >PS: I was asked offline by a lurking reader why our statement refers to the >MAG. The official name is the AG, no? > The last part of the caucus statement: "In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF." Perhaps it should go up front. 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 iza at anr.org Fri Feb 22 08:17:55 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:17:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Synthesis paper (and news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adam. More than one source said it *might* be Hyderabard, but until announced/confirmed, we would not know. It's so unfortunate that ICANN Delhi meeting was held during the Chinese New Year. Chinese folks made a statement to request/caution - that never happen again. I guess it may be rather difficult to find the venue in Delhi, if they are to change the date, since there are limited places in Delhi to accomodate, thus moving to other cities such as Hyderabad is kind of understandable or likely to happen. izumi 2008/2/21, Adam Peake : > At 10:05 AM +0900 2/21/08, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >Thank you Adam for the info below. How about the venue? > >IT was almost a "known secret" in ICANN Delhi meeting > >that it may move to Hyderabard. Markus was also at > >ICANN meeting though I had no coversation on this matter > >with him. > > > Izumi, the only discussion on the MAG list has > been the email I forwarded from Markus. There > has been no mention of Hyderabad. As soon as > anything's mentioned I'll forward. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 22 09:13:52 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:13:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I also agree with Jeanette, Milton and Adam, but to add diverisity ;-), I might say - I was involved in organizing IPv4-v6 workshop. In the beginning, Japanese Internet community (and myself) tried to focus on IPv4 depletion, while RIRs and ISOC on IPv6 transition. In the end, as the available slots were not enough, we had to merge and we did that. It was not so bad in the end. We had relatively wider views on the issue. Likewise, if the MAG and the secretariat act somewhat a catalyst, bringing different groups/viewpoints in a common theme, it could be done - not easy, I understand, but if MAG is authorized to do so beforehand, at least for some thematic meetings - it may be good. izumi 2008/2/22, Adam Peake : > > >Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >>>About the multi-stakeholder organization of > >>>workshops -- always intended to be a principle > >>>not a rule. And as the caucus / civil society > >> > >>What those workshops need is not necessarily representation of multiple > >>stakeholders, if by "stakeholder" we mean business, govt and civil > >>society. What the workshops need, and badly, is a diversity of views. > > > >I very much agree with that. > > > > Also agree. > > I don't see any problem in sticking with the multistakeholder > principles, just emphasizing the importance of diversity of views. > Ideally they go hand in hand. > > > > >It is not easy to enforce though. How would you prove that workshop > >organizers invited only token stakeholders of the other camps? > > > > If the selection process starts early (and we can this year, could > not on 2006 and 7) then having people submit proposals, merge/develop > them, and then having those proposals available for some public > review might help. > > > Adam > > > > >What is more, if people are not sympathetic to your issue or > >approach, they may boycott it by refusing to co-organize or > >participate. While diversity of views supports the spirit of the > >IGF, in practice it is not always easy to implement. > >jeanette > > A > >>panel on free expression, e.g., can always find a token businessperson > >>or CS rep who favors (or opposes) freedom of expression in a specific > >>policy context. The workshops are useless unless the leading and most > >>articulate advocates of, say, more restrictive content regulation are on > >>the _same_ panel as the leading and most articulate advocates of less > >>content regulation. Then these workshops might lead to something. > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 iza at anr.org Fri Feb 22 09:17:55 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:17:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder for your effort and work. 2008/2/21, Parminder : IMHO, the participation part got only one para only, seemingly not substantial enough. I felt there were less participante from developing parts of the world, (not only developing countries per se, but there are folks inside developed countries, who are not rich enough to come to IGF, but entitiled stakeholders), youth, or other civil society NGO, non-profit groups, for exmaple. Stronger measuures be taken, especially if it is to be hosted in India, where Asia Pacific region go half of, I believe world's poorest people, concentrating in South Asia. I am not good at addressing these, but Parminder, I trust you have good knowledge and writing skills to emphasise this point more. Please, if at all possible. izumi > *Participation at the IGF* > > * * > > It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and > under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the > annual meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential > participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also a > lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which should > be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot > fill in for greater face to face participation of currently > under-represented groups. > > > > Thanks. > > * * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- 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 Fri Feb 22 10:02:47 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:02:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] APC paper on access and the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <02cf01c874ab$ccc39ae0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080222150250.EF4432D50A8@mail.gn.apc.org> dear all Please find attached a paper "Building Consensus on Internet Access at the Internet Governance Forum" which identifies and documents the main areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that were generated under the Access theme at the second Internet Governance Forum in Rio De Janeiro, November 2007. We gratefully acknowledge the support, financial and otherwise, from IDRC, for both our access related work in the IGF last year, and the production of this preliminary report. The recommendations are noted in the first two pages - but are included below as text here for ease of reference. The paper is 12 pages long in total. The document notes willie currie as the contact person in general, but if you would like to discuss aspects of the paper and it's recommendations next week in geneva, please note that Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, will be our representative at the meetings. For personal reasons, i won't be able to make it to the consultations next week, but wish you all the vesy best and look forward to staying in touch remotely. karen Building Consensus on Internet Access at the Internet Governance Forum ======================================================== This paper identifies and documents the main areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that were generated under the Access theme at the second Internet Governance Forum in Rio De Janeiro, November 2007. Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently viewed and operates primarily as a space for discussion, the paper finds that (specifically in the case of Access) it is also a space in which commonality of opinion occurs to the level at which ‘recommendations’ can be made and repeatedly asserted independently/individually in the workshops, and strategically reinforced at different levels of the IGF. The levels addressed in the paper include: - the three 'thematic' workshops on access - the reporting back session - and the main access plenary The paper finds the generation and articulation of recommendations to be in line with the mandate of the IGF, specifically: "Advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world." Whilst a variety of recommendations were made, these can be categorised into the following broad areas: * Enhancement of the development of and access to infrastructure - in recognising that the availability of internet infrastructure needs to be considered hand-in-hand with the affordability of the infrastructure, this recommendation calls for the consistent implementation of competitive regimes and the creation of incentives that facilitate the co-existence of competitive and collaborative models for providing and/or improving access. * Localisation of ICT and Telecom policies and regulation – refers to calls for a review of the ways in which access issues are articulated and ICT/Telecom policy and regulation is formulated. It asks that the translation/customisation of largely urban-centric policies be challenged and that greater emphasis be given to demand-side characteristics and the needs of rural/local communities. * Promoting the development potential of ICTs and integrating access infrastructure initiatives with other basic needs – calls for a multi-sectoral approach to infrastructure development and regulation; specifically the integration of ICT regulation and policy with local development strategies, as well as the exploitation of complementarities between different types of development infrastructure This paper proposes that the convergence in opinions about how to address the challenges of access may be a result of a maturity in understanding of the issues relating to access that has built up over time and is discussed in other related bodies and fora. However, thinking and understanding of ‘tools’ and implementation procedures/processes of solutions for resolving/addressing these well understood issues and challenges cannot be described as having attained a similar level of maturity – in fact, particularly in the case of rural/local access they can be described as infantile. There is therefore continued need and relevance for addressing Access at future IGF meetings, however the way in which this will need to be done will have to be different from the largely discursive identification of issues and challenges. The Internet governance community and indeed the portion of the world’s population waiting to gain access to the Internet would benefit from a more implementation-orientation to future discussions on Access. One idea proposed by APC[1] is that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to specific institutions. These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for action from the individuals in the working group. These working groups have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. APC sees IGF working groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they should address particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They will also have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report that dynamic coalitions do not have. One such group could be a working group on competitive and collaborative models for access. Further Information: Willie Currie APC Communication and Information Policy Programme Manager wcurrie at apc.org [1] Statement of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) on the second Internet Governance Forum, Rio de Janeiro November 12-15 2007 http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5340227____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: APC_IGC_Access recommendations_0208.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 153000 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Feb 22 10:09:33 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:09:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting Message-ID: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> Hi, now its official. The IGF meeting will take place in Hyderabad from 3-6 December 2008. The Hyderabad International Convention Center (HICC) was chosen as the venue for the meeting. The secretariat has visited the venue last week and is very happy with the choice. The hotel situation seems to be much better in Hyderabad. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 22 10:12:47 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update Hyderabad it is Fwd: [igf_members] Dates and venue for the IGF meeting 2008 Message-ID: So it's Hyderabad, and couple of days earlier than was planned for New Delhi. Adam > >Dear colleagues, > >Our Indian friends inform me that the Government >of India is pleased to host the 2008 IGF meeting >in Hyderabad from 3-6 December 2008. >The Hyderabad International Convention Center >(HICC) was chosen as the venue for the meeting. > >We are very happy with this decision. We were on >a planning mission in India last week and also >visited Hyderabad. The HICC is a brand-new state >of the art convention center with all the >technological infrastructure necessary for >hosting an Internet related meeting. > >We also looked at the hotel situation there and >found plenty of affordable and adequate hotels, >from four and five star hotel to clean and neat >budget accommodation for USD 100 or less (most >of them with free WiFi!). There are also >serviced appartments and houses as an attractive >alternative. > >As regards transportation, a new airport will be >opened in Hyerabad next month. There are >sufficient sufficient direct international >flights to Hyderabad from the major hubs in >Asia, the Middle East, Europe and North America. > >Last but not least, Hyderabad is a fast growing >IT center with all the major international >companies implanted there (a growth rate of 50% >a year in the IT sector) and therefore highly >suited as a venue for the IGF. As our guiding >theme is Internet Governance for Development, it >is good to see that development in action in >Hyderabad! > > >Our Indian hosts will give us a presentation of >the venue at the consultations Tuesday. > >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 From avri at psg.com Fri Feb 22 10:41:15 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:41:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 22 Feb 2008, at 09:13, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In the beginning, > Japanese Internet community (and myself) tried to focus on > IPv4 depletion, while RIRs and ISOC on IPv6 transition. i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). while the technical details, and especially the technical ontology, of why IPv6 is the way it is, or why the transition technology is the way it is probably a wast of time for this list, understanding some of that seems necessary in order to be able to plan for a policy that makes deployment and success possible. 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 10:49:30 2008 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:49:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <007f01c8756a$84904650$e97b0b0a@TEST55C9A4E356> Randy Bush is giving quite an interesting presentation on this very subject as I speak, sat at Domainpulse in Vienna. The slides should be here at some point soon: http://www.domainpulse.at/ Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:41 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format On 22 Feb 2008, at 09:13, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In the beginning, > Japanese Internet community (and myself) tried to focus on > IPv4 depletion, while RIRs and ISOC on IPv6 transition. i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). while the technical details, and especially the technical ontology, of why IPv6 is the way it is, or why the transition technology is the way it is probably a wast of time for this list, understanding some of that seems necessary in order to be able to plan for a policy that makes deployment and success possible. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 22 11:50:55 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:50:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: My quick scan at options from Geneva seems to indicate more expensive, worse layovers, with fewer airlines having direct inbound service. Yahoo! BD On 2/22/08 4:09 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > Hi, > > now its official. The IGF meeting will take place in Hyderabad from 3-6 > December 2008. The Hyderabad International Convention Center (HICC) was > chosen as the venue for the meeting. > The secretariat has visited the venue last week and is very happy with > the choice. The hotel situation seems to be much better in Hyderabad. > jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Feb 22 12:01:23 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:01:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Briefing for CS with secretariat of the CSTD - 26 Feb. 2008 In-Reply-To: <200802151740.m1FHelMd018737@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200802221701.m1MH1WdB010255@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you that the CSTD Secretariat will arrange some time for a briefing with Civil Society on the preparations towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD, 26-30 May 2008). This briefing will take place, such as last year, during the lunchtime period of the IGF Preparatory meeting. Date: 26 February 2008 Time: 14:00-15:00 Venue: UN Palais des Nations, room number to be confirmed More information shortly. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : vendredi 15 février 2008 18:42 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD(26-30 May 2008) Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members’ listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: “Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment” - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: “Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research” More information coming soon. 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 -------------- 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 Fri Feb 22 12:30:44 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:00:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1203701444.47bf06c4553d7@secure.symonds.net> Hi All I am traveling, and have intermitent connectivity in the next few days. meanwhile we have little more than 24 hours to go for deciding the text to be put up for consensus call... we need more engagement with the draft. for instance, the statement on themes for IGF delhi have had little response, and in such a situation it wil be diffcult to even put them for consensus call. And the theme selection is one of the most important activites for the whole IGF process. so, pl go through the drafts and give your comments. even if some more contentious issues are being discussed/dealt with on the sideline, and you do not want to concern yourself with them, you can go to those parts on which you would like to comment. thanks. My laptop is not connected right now, and I cant resent the drafts. pl see them under the following thread - reconstituing MAG, main themes, and delhi IGF format. parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 12:32:20 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:02:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> > I am not good at addressing these, but Parminder, I trust you have good > knowledge and writing skills to emphasise this point more. Please, if at all > possible. > > izumi Sure. will do. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Izumi AIZU : > Thanks Parminder for your effort and work. > > > 2008/2/21, Parminder : > > IMHO, the participation part got only one para only, seemingly not > substantial > enough. I felt there were less participante from developing parts of the > world, > (not only developing countries per se, but there are folks inside developed > countries, who are not rich enough to come to IGF, but entitiled > stakeholders), > youth, or other civil society NGO, non-profit groups, for exmaple. Stronger > measuures be taken, especially if it is to be hosted in India, where Asia > Pacific > region go half of, I believe world's poorest people, concentrating in South > Asia. > > I am not good at addressing these, but Parminder, I trust you have good > knowledge and writing skills to emphasise this point more. Please, if at all > possible. > > izumi > > > *Participation at the IGF* > > > > * * > > > > It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and > > under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the > > annual meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to > potential > > participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also > a > > lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which > should > > be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot > > fill in for greater face to face participation of currently > > under-represented groups. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > * * > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Feb 22 12:36:36 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:36:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <1203701444.47bf06c4553d7@secure.symonds.net> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701444.47bf06c4553d7@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <20080222173638.7108F2A078D@mail.gn.apc.org> hi parminder i'm sorry we haven't been able to spend time helping with the caucus statements.. i'll have a look now and we'll send our comments in the next 24 hours, if we have anything to add i think that some of the proposals included in our statement at the end of the rio IGF, and the recent access paper with recommendations, will be in harmony with the caucus statement... i'll take a closer look asap karen At 17:30 22/02/2008, Parminder wrote: >Hi All > >I am traveling, and have intermitent connectivity in the next few days. > >meanwhile we have little more than 24 hours to go for deciding the text to be >put up for consensus call... > >we need more engagement with the draft. for instance, the statement on themes >for IGF delhi have had little response, and in such a situation it wil be >diffcult to even put them for consensus call. And the theme >selection is one of >the most important activites for the whole IGF process. > >so, pl go through the drafts and give your comments. even if some more >contentious issues are being discussed/dealt with on the sideline, and you do >not want to concern yourself with them, you can go to those parts on >which you >would like to comment. thanks. > >My laptop is not connected right now, and I cant resent the drafts. >pl see them >under the following thread - reconstituing MAG, main themes, and delhi IGF >format. > >parminder > > > > >www.ITforChange.net >IT for Change >Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Feb 22 12:42:55 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:12:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) In-Reply-To: References: <20080220142031.8CA57E253C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296A1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1203702175.47bf099fa5cf4@secure.symonds.net> > Except for the one fifth, why not? Why wouldn't > GigaNet, for example, aspire to that? > > How's GigaNet represented in the IGF at the moment... not so bad. > APC is bigger than giganet, and an org focused on the internet. so why not one sixth for them. i know few other big CS networks as well.... some gender and ICT networks, telecentre network, for instance. I like the way this logic works out. BTW since you ask abt giganet's presence in the MAG, it may be relevant information that none of these networks I mention have any member at all. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Adam Peake : > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> > >> Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder > >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > >> between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one > >> quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.) > > > >One quarter, eh? See below. > > > >> I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new > >> stakeholder group in the IGF. > > > >Bollocks. > > > Not. > > > >How is it progress for one particular group to > >secede from business and civil society (all the > >while claiming that it is part of both, just to > >hedge its bet) and gain privileged > >representation for itself? Does this mean that > >it would also be progress for any other new > >stakeholder group to make enough noise to get > >considered as a special group? Where does it end? > > > >> I have no problem with the > >> technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the > >> IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented. > > > >The whole point of claiming to be a separate > >group in this case is to be over-represented. > >You prove it yourself above: You're willing to > >give parity in representation to a group that > >is, for the most part, a small subset of private > >sector or civil society, merely by virtue of the > >fact that they claim to be a distinct category > >of actor. So if I could somehow establish "Full > >Professors in snowy climes " as a new category > >they would get one fifth of the positions? > > > Except for the one fifth, why not? Why wouldn't > GigaNet, for example, aspire to that? > > How's GigaNet represented in the IGF at the moment... not so bad. > > > >This is a political game. Obviously. The claim > >that TC is "special" and apart from CS and PS > >was simply a way for incumbent I* governance > >organizations to maxmimize their voice and > >influence in the IGF. If recognition as a > >special group translated into _less_ > >representation, the same folks would suddenly > >claim not to be a distinct group and don the > >camouflage of civil society or private sector. > >They've got you covered either way, as McTim's > >none-too-subtle machinations on the list show. > > > >But, let's not forget the validity of Jeanette's > >comment that numbers on the MAG don't > >necessarily translate into influence, and not > >get hung up on qutoas. In our statement let's be > >principled and stick to Biz, Gov and CS (.com, > >.gov and .org) as the categories, > > > er... Bollocks. > > No better way to screw up CS discussions over the coming year. > > And we shouldn't run the risk of games that might > result. CS might be recognized as not being fully > clothed (think that might have been part of what > Danny was getting at.) > > Adam > > > >let's recognize that individuals who work for > >Internet admin bodies can fall in any of those > >categories, let's not be naïve about the obvious > >self-interest these orgs may have in populating > >an IGF advisory body, and let's tell the truth > >about it. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 12:47:27 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:17:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080222173638.7108F2A078D@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701444.47bf06c4553d7@secure.symonds.net> <20080222173638.7108F2A078D@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <1203702447.47bf0aaf90297@secure.symonds.net> thanks Karen I did look up APC's post Rio stamtent and pick up things from there. There were some other things I wanted to include - like a code of participation in IG processes - but it did not fit the way we are developing the 3 proposed statments. put if you can suggest some place which you think will be right, we shd include it. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting karen banks : > hi parminder > > i'm sorry we haven't been able to spend time helping with the caucus > statements.. i'll have a look now and we'll send our comments in the > next 24 hours, if we have anything to add > > i think that some of the proposals included in our statement at the > end of the rio IGF, and the recent access paper with recommendations, > will be in harmony with the caucus statement... i'll take a closer look asap > > karen > > At 17:30 22/02/2008, Parminder wrote: > > >Hi All > > > >I am traveling, and have intermitent connectivity in the next few days. > > > >meanwhile we have little more than 24 hours to go for deciding the text to > be > >put up for consensus call... > > > >we need more engagement with the draft. for instance, the statement on > themes > >for IGF delhi have had little response, and in such a situation it wil be > >diffcult to even put them for consensus call. And the theme > >selection is one of > >the most important activites for the whole IGF process. > > > >so, pl go through the drafts and give your comments. even if some more > >contentious issues are being discussed/dealt with on the sideline, and you > do > >not want to concern yourself with them, you can go to those parts on > >which you > >would like to comment. thanks. > > > >My laptop is not connected right now, and I cant resent the drafts. > >pl see them > >under the following thread - reconstituing MAG, main themes, and delhi IGF > >format. > > > >parminder > > > > > > > > > >www.ITforChange.net > >IT for Change > >Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 12:47:45 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:47:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Please send drafts? In-Reply-To: <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone parminder - i've noted your comment about not being able to resend drafts as you're not connected - but, it's really difficult to find the current status of drafts if you haven't been following on a minute by minute - or day by day basis ;) - which we clearly haven't so - is there any good soul out there who could send me the three drafts in their most current form - i'm assuming they are documents of some kind and not a long thread of call and responses? karen -------------- 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 Feb 22 12:55:10 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:55:10 +0000 Subject: for Karen and others [Fwd: RE: [governance] main themes] Message-ID: <47BF0C7E.1060008@wzb.eu> Hi, to my best knowledge this is the latest version. The others are following. jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] main themes Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:31:13 +0530 From: Parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Parminder" To: Below is the text for the proposed caucus statement on themes for IGF Delhi. As with other statements, we may read out a shorter version of the statement as per time available, but good for the caucus to adopt a full length statement. (starts) As suggested in our earlier statement (depending on which statement goes first), CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access, openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is a primary mandate of the IGF. We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access, openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the main sessions should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be organized around these main sessions, whose output should feed into them. Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the main sessions and the connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also synthesize some outcome documents for each main theme. For Delhi, we suggest the following main session themes. *1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it* Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for enhanced cooperation for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. *2. 'Network Neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers of the Internet'* Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. *3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities"* (Thomas’s current formulation speaks only about CIRs and sustainable communities. I am encouraging him to develop a broader theme of connecting the issue of sustainable communities to IG in all layers – logical, application, content and software. CIRs implicated in logical layers can be one set of issues developed through a thematic workshop and fed into the proposed main session. Issues of local connectivity solutions (and a global policy environment encouraging it), local content, community appropriation of technologies, etc could also be connected to ‘sustainable communities’. More suggestions are welcome here)) *4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance* Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss OfCom’s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. *5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance* The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss OfCom’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. *6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues.* (Ronda’s text is awaited. Suggestions welcome, as for other categories.) (ends) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Feb 22 12:55:44 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:55:44 +0000 Subject: for Karen [Fwd: RE: [governance] IGF delhi format] Message-ID: <47BF0CA0.1050507@wzb.eu> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] IGF delhi format Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:19:43 +0530 From: Parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Parminder" To: *The draft on IGF Delhi format as it stands. (pl point out if any suggestions are not included)* * * *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input for the format for IGF, Delhi* With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who ‘do not often ‘talk’ to each other’. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one’s opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above – that of some clear contribution to the global public policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. It is therefore essential that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate. In fact the ‘stock taking and the way forward’ session at Delhi could then be used as a mid-term review of the IGF process, considering that the IGF process is supposed to be completely reviewed at the end of a five year period. *IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting* To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, Rio. The process of selection of open workshops should, /inter alia/, involve the criteria of (1) Sponsor’s readiness to structure the workshops as a space of open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and those with different points of views, to participate as panelists rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a particular subject. (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF’s broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. *IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet * There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within Rio, from day one onwards. We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must also be able to report back on their activities in such a main session. (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to come here, or in the next part. Jeremy, pl respond to Adam’s observation…..) *Participation at the IGF* * * It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face participation of currently under-represented groups. Thanks. * * ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Feb 22 12:56:08 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:56:08 +0000 Subject: for Karen [Fwd: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG] Message-ID: <47BF0CB8.3010007@wzb.eu> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:46:14 +0530 From: Parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Parminder" To: The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. *The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring * With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG’s working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists – one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. *Membership of the MAG* *(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this.* *Special Advisors and Chair * · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. *Role and Structure of the MAG * With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG’s experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving recommendations’ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. · / /MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org *Subject:* RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to incorporate changes like – removing the number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. Will do in the morning.) To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like “We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG’s working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists – one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate.” Now on this long discussion on the ‘tech community’ issue. There is enough opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of how MAG’s membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and views in favor of saying something simply like – CS is under-represented and this should be corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and construct appropriate language, but basically this is the point) Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of the statement, the MAG membership part and the ‘MAG role and structure’ part, and in addition some other specific issues. The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, and if I remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further comments may also be given. Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not received consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now comes up is (about the second substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it defensible to ask secretariat to be clear and share its ‘clarity’ as well, in such circumstances. So please let me know what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus’s 07 statements for some clarity on these issues. And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we ask for self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think self-selection will require the secretariat to recognize some parameters of what or who can go into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all categories, and some definition of what constitutes these categories… Should we then ask only for self selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do agree, we will quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included and who cant, and on what grounds etc) In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part of the statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) found no negative comment, but still not enough comments. Parminder (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) *The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring * With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. *Membership of the MAG* · We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. · The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the MAG. · As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. · Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. · All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Special Advisors and Chair * · The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. · We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. *Role and Structure of the MAG * With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. · One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG’s experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. · It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. · We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving recommendations’ etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. · Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. · An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. · /(Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. / · IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Feb 22 12:57:00 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:57:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] thanks very much jeanette In-Reply-To: <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20080222175701.E8E052C195D@mail.gn.apc.org> for the three drafts karen -------------- 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 Feb 22 13:02:05 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:02:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] thanks very much jeanette In-Reply-To: <20080222175701.E8E052C195D@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> <20080222175701.E8E052C195D@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <47BF0E1D.3010402@wzb.eu> I posted them to the list so that others can check if I really got the latest versions. jeanette karen banks wrote: > for the three drafts > > karen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Fri Feb 22 13:18:40 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:48:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] thanks very much jeanette In-Reply-To: <47BF0E1D.3010402@wzb.eu> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> <20080222175701.E8E052C195D@mail.gn.apc.org> <47BF0E1D.3010402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <1203704320.47bf1200867db@secure.symonds.net> thanks Jeanette Hi All i am unable to access old emails. But as I requested, pl also see some latest emails in the same thread (as of the three drafts forwarded by Jeanette). there are suggestions/ discussions not incorporated in the text. but even if it is too much trouble, pl comment on the text in front of you as forwarded by Jeanette. parminder Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > I posted them to the list so that others can check if I really got the > latest versions. > jeanette > > karen banks wrote: > > for the three drafts > > > > karen > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Feb 22 13:26:47 2008 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:26:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Please send drafts? In-Reply-To: <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <869476.38164.qm@web54306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> HI All I have not been vocal on this list but have been following everything with interest. I too would like copies of the Drafts .Pleeese !!! Shaila Rao Mistry karen banks wrote: hi everyone parminder - i've noted your comment about not being able to resend drafts as you're not connected - but, it's really difficult to find the current status of drafts if you haven't been following on a minute by minute - or day by day basis ;) - which we clearly haven't so - is there any good soul out there who could send me the three drafts in their most current form - i'm assuming they are documents of some kind and not a long thread of call and responses? karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms .... -------------- 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 Fri Feb 22 13:30:20 2008 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:00:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] thanks very much jeanette In-Reply-To: <1203704320.47bf1200867db@secure.symonds.net> References: <1A269E6F-1CF9-4C22-9203-CCED224CE625@ras.eu.org> <20080221115008.6896967833@smtp1.electricembers.net> <1203701540.47bf072481388@secure.symonds.net> <20080222174750.9C6A62C1C6E@mail.gn.apc.org> <20080222175701.E8E052C195D@mail.gn.apc.org> <47BF0E1D.3010402@wzb.eu> <1203704320.47bf1200867db@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <1203705020.47bf14bc63e3d@secure.symonds.net> especially, there is an amended text, done by Adam, of the proposed statement on 'reconstituting MAG'. Adam, can you pl resend it to all. I have to go offline now. Will check again briefly in a few hours. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Parminder : > > thanks Jeanette > > Hi All > > i am unable to access old emails. But as I requested, pl also see some latest > > emails in the same thread (as of the three drafts forwarded by Jeanette). > there > are suggestions/ discussions not incorporated in the text. but even if it is > > too much trouble, pl comment on the text in front of you as forwarded by > Jeanette. > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > www.ITforChange.net > IT for Change > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > > > I posted them to the list so that others can check if I really got the > > latest versions. > > jeanette > > > > karen banks wrote: > > > for the three drafts > > > > > > karen > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 13:50:02 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:50:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: Parminder, here's the re-send of my edit of your text on the Reconstituting of the MAG. There have been a few comments since, some I can remember (there may well be more...) are: Move reason for calling the advisory group the "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG to the top of the statement. Somewhere below I wrote "[I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]." My misunderstanding, withdraw that comment. Adam Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. I've edited and where important noted the new text. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) [start]  * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] Special Advisors and Chair * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It is something we should recommended in the other contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. END Hope the suggested changes are clear.  Adam >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. We appreciate the >new measures of transparency taken with respect >to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG >should work through two elists ­ one open and >other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >public importance, normally discussions should >be open to public scrutiny. However we do >understand that there can be some circumstances >requiring closed discussions. All discussions >taken to the closed list should be listed, and >summaries of them provided as appropriate. By >the same rule transcripts should be provided of >all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless >some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in >a closed manner, in which case such topics >should be listed, and summary of discussions >provided as appropriate. >Membership of the MAG >(text to be decided.) Since the process that >built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I >will request someone to suggest fresh text for >this. >Special Advisors and Chair >·         The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >·         One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >·         We will also like greater clarity at >this point whether MAG has any substantive >identity other than advising the UN SG. For >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >looks highly impractical that these tasks can >cohere in the UN SG. >·         Having some authority and identity of >its own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >·          MAG should prepare an annual report >for the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >·         IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, which should be truly >multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. >Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph >80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > >Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on >'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at >present. (also put below this email) (I am still >to incorporate changes like ­ removing the >number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. >Will do in the morning.) > >To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency >taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of >the view that MAG should work through two elists >­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >issues of public importance, normally >discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >However we do understand that there can be some >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All >discussions taken to the closed list should be >listed, and summaries of them provided as >appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should >be provided of all face to face meetings of the >MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >topics should be listed, and summary of >discussions provided as appropriate.² > >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to >getting into any kind of details on the matter >of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >different stakeholders, and views in favor of >saying something simply like ­ CS is >under-represented and this should be corrected >in this round (I will pick from the emails and >construct appropriate language, but basically >this is the point) > >Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There >are two key parts of the statement, the MAG >membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ >part, and in addition some other specific issues. > >The part other than on MAG membership received a >few early comment, and if I remember right, all >positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further >comments may also be given. > >Now in the MAG membership part, there were three >substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want >the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >received consensus and will not go in. However, >the question that now comes up is (about the >second substantive part) - can we ask for >clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, >quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >issues without ourselves suggesting anything at >all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on >these issues. Is it defensible to ask >secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me >know what to do with this part. We did ask in >caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these >issues. > >And about the third substantive part, I am also >not sure how can we ask for self-selection of >each stakeholder category. I would think >self-selection will require the secretariat to >recognize some parameters of what or who can go >into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking >them to name all categories, and some definition >of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we >then ask only for self selection for CS (well, >hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >quickly have to resume this discussion that some >are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish >some criteria of who all can be included and who >cant, and on what grounds etc) > >In all these contexts, I am not at all clear >what can go in this part of the statement. >Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > >Also pl also close comments on the other parts, >which have (I think) found no negative comment, >but still not enough comments. > >Parminder > >(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. >Membership of the MAG >·      We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. >·      The rules for membership of the MAG, >including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and make open along with due >justifications. We think that as per Tunis >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, >civil society and the business sector. TA also >rightly recognizes international organizations >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >they should be allowed an appropriate number of >seats in the MAG. >·      As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats >for international organizations, out of the >remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to >11 seats. There are five civil society members >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >should be corrected in this round of rotation of >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >replace each retiring member with one from the >same stakeholder group. Full civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >·      Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen based on appropriate processes of >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of >that particular stakeholder group. This >complicates the process of selection, especially >in the case of civil society and business >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of >judgment. This, however, should be done in a >completely transparent manner. Deviations from >the self-selection processes of stakeholder >groups should be kept to the minimum and be >defensible, and normally be explained. >·      All stakeholders should be asked to keep >in mind the need to adequately represent >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >where applicable, special interest groups. >Special Advisors and Chair >·      The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >·      We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >·      One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >·      It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >·      We will also like greater clarity at this >point whether MAG has any substantive identity >other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to >carry out some part of the mandate which >requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying >issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs >to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly >impractical that these tasks can cohere in the >UN SG. >·      Having some authority and identity of its >own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >·      An annual report needs to be submitted by >the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >preparing this annual report, at present? It is >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >report, with engagement of all stakeholder >members. >·      (Alternate text for the above point since >CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is >nothing very exciting about it. But every >organization including IGF should have an annual >report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for >the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >·      IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 22 14:42:10 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:42:10 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3dcd01c8758b$0d6fe500$8b00a8c0@IAN> Here's a last attempt at a set of words for the missing section. At this late stage, rather than commenting generally, as people either suggest amendments, or express agreement or disagreement? Text follows.. (a few expressions of agreement are necessary for this to be included now, so please give it a yeah or a nay) The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector. We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 23 February 2008 05:50 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Parminder, here's the re-send of my edit of your text on the Reconstituting of the MAG. There have been a few comments since, some I can remember (there may well be more...) are: Move reason for calling the advisory group the "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG to the top of the statement. Somewhere below I wrote "[I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]." My misunderstanding, withdraw that comment. Adam Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. I've edited and where important noted the new text. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] Special Advisors and Chair * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It is something we should recommended in the other contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. END Hope the suggested changes are clear. Adam >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. We appreciate the >new measures of transparency taken with respect >to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG >should work through two elists ­ one open and >other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >public importance, normally discussions should >be open to public scrutiny. However we do >understand that there can be some circumstances >requiring closed discussions. All discussions >taken to the closed list should be listed, and >summaries of them provided as appropriate. By >the same rule transcripts should be provided of >all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless >some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in >a closed manner, in which case such topics >should be listed, and summary of discussions >provided as appropriate. >Membership of the MAG >(text to be decided.) Since the process that >built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I >will request someone to suggest fresh text for >this. >Special Advisors and Chair >· The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >· We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >· One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >· It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >· We will also like greater clarity at >this point whether MAG has any substantive >identity other than advising the UN SG. For >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >looks highly impractical that these tasks can >cohere in the UN SG. >· Having some authority and identity of >its own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >· MAG should prepare an annual report >for the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >· IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, which should be truly >multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. >Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph >80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > >Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on >'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at >present. (also put below this email) (I am still >to incorporate changes like ­ removing the >number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. >Will do in the morning.) > >To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency >taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of >the view that MAG should work through two elists >­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >issues of public importance, normally >discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >However we do understand that there can be some >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All >discussions taken to the closed list should be >listed, and summaries of them provided as >appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should >be provided of all face to face meetings of the >MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >topics should be listed, and summary of >discussions provided as appropriate.² > >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to >getting into any kind of details on the matter >of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >different stakeholders, and views in favor of >saying something simply like ­ CS is >under-represented and this should be corrected >in this round (I will pick from the emails and >construct appropriate language, but basically >this is the point) > >Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There >are two key parts of the statement, the MAG >membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ >part, and in addition some other specific issues. > >The part other than on MAG membership received a >few early comment, and if I remember right, all >positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further >comments may also be given. > >Now in the MAG membership part, there were three >substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want >the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >received consensus and will not go in. However, >the question that now comes up is (about the >second substantive part) - can we ask for >clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, >quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >issues without ourselves suggesting anything at >all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on >these issues. Is it defensible to ask >secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me >know what to do with this part. We did ask in >caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these >issues. > >And about the third substantive part, I am also >not sure how can we ask for self-selection of >each stakeholder category. I would think >self-selection will require the secretariat to >recognize some parameters of what or who can go >into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking >them to name all categories, and some definition >of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we >then ask only for self selection for CS (well, >hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >quickly have to resume this discussion that some >are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish >some criteria of who all can be included and who >cant, and on what grounds etc) > >In all these contexts, I am not at all clear >what can go in this part of the statement. >Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > >Also pl also close comments on the other parts, >which have (I think) found no negative comment, >but still not enough comments. > >Parminder > >(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. >Membership of the MAG >· We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. >· The rules for membership of the MAG, >including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and make open along with due >justifications. We think that as per Tunis >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, >civil society and the business sector. TA also >rightly recognizes international organizations >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >they should be allowed an appropriate number of >seats in the MAG. >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats >for international organizations, out of the >remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to >11 seats. There are five civil society members >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >should be corrected in this round of rotation of >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >replace each retiring member with one from the >same stakeholder group. Full civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >· Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen based on appropriate processes of >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of >that particular stakeholder group. This >complicates the process of selection, especially >in the case of civil society and business >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of >judgment. This, however, should be done in a >completely transparent manner. Deviations from >the self-selection processes of stakeholder >groups should be kept to the minimum and be >defensible, and normally be explained. >· All stakeholders should be asked to keep >in mind the need to adequately represent >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >where applicable, special interest groups. >Special Advisors and Chair >· The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >· We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >· One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >· It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >· We will also like greater clarity at this >point whether MAG has any substantive identity >other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to >carry out some part of the mandate which >requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying >issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs >to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly >impractical that these tasks can cohere in the >UN SG. >· Having some authority and identity of its >own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >· An annual report needs to be submitted by >the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >preparing this annual report, at present? It is >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >report, with engagement of all stakeholder >members. >· (Alternate text for the above point since >CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is >nothing very exciting about it. But every >organization including IGF should have an annual >report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for >the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >· IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 14:47:45 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:47:45 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - and one last sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3dda01c8758b$d3851f80$8b00a8c0@IAN> > At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society I don't remember consensus on this and I believe this sentence should be dropped. CS representation should be equal with government and public sector, that's the bottom line I think, not some percentage of the whole. Can we agree to drop this sentence? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 23 February 2008 05:50 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Parminder, here's the re-send of my edit of your text on the Reconstituting of the MAG. There have been a few comments since, some I can remember (there may well be more...) are: Move reason for calling the advisory group the "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG to the top of the statement. Somewhere below I wrote "[I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]." My misunderstanding, withdraw that comment. Adam Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. I've edited and where important noted the new text. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full potential of this unique global institution. In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring of MAG. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG (text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] Special Advisors and Chair * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. [some change to wording] * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate for the MAG to do. It is something we should recommended in the other contribution be addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) part of the taking stock/way forward session and associated workshops.] Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full engagement of all stakeholders. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead [I think planning the year ahead impossible given the evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting." with New: The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. [from APC statement] We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. END Hope the suggested changes are clear. Adam >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. We appreciate the >new measures of transparency taken with respect >to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG >should work through two elists ­ one open and >other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >public importance, normally discussions should >be open to public scrutiny. However we do >understand that there can be some circumstances >requiring closed discussions. All discussions >taken to the closed list should be listed, and >summaries of them provided as appropriate. By >the same rule transcripts should be provided of >all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless >some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in >a closed manner, in which case such topics >should be listed, and summary of discussions >provided as appropriate. >Membership of the MAG >(text to be decided.) Since the process that >built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I >will request someone to suggest fresh text for >this. >Special Advisors and Chair >· The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >· We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >· One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >· It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >· We will also like greater clarity at >this point whether MAG has any substantive >identity other than advising the UN SG. For >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >looks highly impractical that these tasks can >cohere in the UN SG. >· Having some authority and identity of >its own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >· MAG should prepare an annual report >for the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >· IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, which should be truly >multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. >Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph >80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of the IGF. > > > > > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) > > >Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on >'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at >present. (also put below this email) (I am still >to incorporate changes like ­ removing the >number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. >Will do in the morning.) > >To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like > >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency >taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of >the view that MAG should work through two elists >­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >issues of public importance, normally >discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >However we do understand that there can be some >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All >discussions taken to the closed list should be >listed, and summaries of them provided as >appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should >be provided of all face to face meetings of the >MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >topics should be listed, and summary of >discussions provided as appropriate.² > >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to >getting into any kind of details on the matter >of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >different stakeholders, and views in favor of >saying something simply like ­ CS is >under-represented and this should be corrected >in this round (I will pick from the emails and >construct appropriate language, but basically >this is the point) > >Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There >are two key parts of the statement, the MAG >membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ >part, and in addition some other specific issues. > >The part other than on MAG membership received a >few early comment, and if I remember right, all >positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further >comments may also be given. > >Now in the MAG membership part, there were three >substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want >the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >received consensus and will not go in. However, >the question that now comes up is (about the >second substantive part) - can we ask for >clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, >quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >issues without ourselves suggesting anything at >all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on >these issues. Is it defensible to ask >secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me >know what to do with this part. We did ask in >caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these >issues. > >And about the third substantive part, I am also >not sure how can we ask for self-selection of >each stakeholder category. I would think >self-selection will require the secretariat to >recognize some parameters of what or who can go >into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking >them to name all categories, and some definition >of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we >then ask only for self selection for CS (well, >hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >quickly have to resume this discussion that some >are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish >some criteria of who all can be included and who >cant, and on what grounds etc) > >In all these contexts, I am not at all clear >what can go in this part of the statement. >Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. > >Also pl also close comments on the other parts, >which have (I think) found no negative comment, >but still not enough comments. > >Parminder > >(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >established as the key global forum for an >inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >issues. This has led to different stakeholder >groups beginning to understand and appreciate >each others viewpoints, which sets the context >of a socially and politically engaged >development of the Internet through appropriate >policy guidance as required. >Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >also tried new forms of interactions. These are >all steps in the right direction. However, we >think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >steps toward realizing the full potential of >this unique global institution. >In a later statement we will provide inputs on >possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >the main sessions. Here we will present some >suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >of MAG. >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >more effective and productive. >Membership of the MAG >· We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. >· The rules for membership of the MAG, >including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and make open along with due >justifications. We think that as per Tunis >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among governments, >civil society and the business sector. TA also >rightly recognizes international organizations >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >they should be allowed an appropriate number of >seats in the MAG. >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats >for international organizations, out of the >remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to >11 seats. There are five civil society members >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >should be corrected in this round of rotation of >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >replace each retiring member with one from the >same stakeholder group. Full civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >· Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen based on appropriate processes of >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of >that particular stakeholder group. This >complicates the process of selection, especially >in the case of civil society and business >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of >judgment. This, however, should be done in a >completely transparent manner. Deviations from >the self-selection processes of stakeholder >groups should be kept to the minimum and be >defensible, and normally be explained. >· All stakeholders should be asked to keep >in mind the need to adequately represent >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >where applicable, special interest groups. >Special Advisors and Chair >· The role and necessity of the Special >Advisors should be clarified, as also the >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >should be represented in the selection of >Special Advisors as well. >· We are of the opinion that in keeping >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >there should only be one chair, nominated by the >UN SG. The host country should be able to >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >would be helpful in context of various issues of >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >case, we will like to understand the division of >work and responsibility between the two chairs, >in the present arrangement? It may be too late >to move over to this suggested arrangement for >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >government representative has already taken over >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >about the post-Delhi phase. >Role and Structure of the MAG >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >also the right time to re-visit the role and the >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >· One function is of course to make all >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >are of the opinion that MAG must review its >decision making processes to make them more >effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >its mandate. >· It will be very useful for MAG to work >through working groups. These WGs should prepare >for each main session and the set of workshops >connected to this main session. WGs can also be >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >effectively. >· We will also like greater clarity at this >point whether MAG has any substantive identity >other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to >carry out some part of the mandate which >requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying >issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs >to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly >impractical that these tasks can cohere in the >UN SG. >· Having some authority and identity of its >own is also required for MAG to do some >important regular tasks like assessing how well >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >exercise, which needs to be done with full >engagement of all stakeholders. >· An annual report needs to be submitted by >the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >preparing this annual report, at present? It is >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >report, with engagement of all stakeholder >members. >· (Alternate text for the above point since >CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is >nothing very exciting about it. But every >organization including IGF should have an annual >report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for >the IGF. This report should mention IGF >activities and performance for the year against >relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. >· IGF should actively encourage regional >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. >Greater financial support for the IGF, through >untied public funds, is one of the central >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >understand that a meeting among potential >funders is being held in Geneva around the >February consultations on this issue, and we >look forward to some positive results from that >meeting. >IGF should also fund the participation of at >least 5 members of civil society from developing >and least developed countries to ensure >meaningful participation in its open >consultations. >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >term MAG at least for official purposes, because >multi-stakeholderism is the most important >aspect of 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 14:55:45 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:55:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - and one last sentence In-Reply-To: <3dda01c8758b$d3851f80$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3dda01c8758b$d3851f80$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47BF28C1.9030503@rits.org.br> I agree with Peter. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: >> At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society > > I don't remember consensus on this and I believe this sentence should be dropped. CS representation should be equal with government and public sector, that's the bottom line I think, not some percentage of the whole. > > > Can we agree to drop this sentence? > > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: 23 February 2008 05:50 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > Parminder, here's the re-send of my edit of your > text on the Reconstituting of the MAG. > > There have been a few comments since, some I can > remember (there may well be more...) are: > > Move reason for calling the advisory group the > "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG to the top > of the statement. > > Somewhere below I wrote "[I think planning the > year ahead impossible given the evolving nature > of the IGF]." My misunderstanding, withdraw that > comment. > > Adam > > > > > > > > Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc. Hopefully now plain text. > > I've edited and where important noted the new text. > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's > input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory > group (MAG) renewal / restructuring [added > multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title] > > With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of > the opinion that IGF is getting firmly > established as the key global forum for an > inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy > issues. This has led to different stakeholder > groups beginning to understand and appreciate > each others viewpoints, which sets the context of > a socially and politically engaged development of > the Internet through appropriate policy guidance > as required. > > Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and > also tried new forms of interactions. These are > all steps in the right direction. However, we > think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm > steps toward realizing the full potential of this > unique global institution. > > In a later statement we will provide inputs on > possible improvements in the format for IGF, New > Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in > the main sessions. Here we will present some > suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring > of MAG. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and > restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more > effective and productive. We appreciate the new > measures of transparency taken with respect to > MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should > work through two elists -- one open and other > closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public > importance, normally discussions should be open > to public scrutiny. However we do understand that > there can be some circumstances requiring closed > discussions. All discussions taken to the closed > list should be listed, and summaries of them > provided as appropriate. By the same rule > transcripts should be provided of all face to > face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are > expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, > in which case such topics should be listed, and > summary of discussions provided as appropriate. > > Membership of the MAG > > (text to be decided.) Since the process that > built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I > will request someone to suggest fresh text for > this. > > **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text) > > [start] > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be > rotated every year. > > * In the interest of transparency and > understanding the responsibilities of MAG > members, when making appointments to the MAG we > ask the Secretary General to explain which > interested group that person is associated with. > > * Civil society has been under represented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected > in this round of rotation and a fair balance of > members between all stakeholders assured. At > least one quarter of the MAG membership must be > drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. > [all the stuff about numbers deleted] > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen > based on appropriate processes of self-selection > by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it > is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder > entity, or even a given set of them, as > completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates > the process of selection, especially in the case > of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for some scope for the final selecting authority > exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, > should be done in a completely transparent > manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to > the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of > the last sentence, think they were too much to > demand] > > * When recommending members of the MAG all > stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of > gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. [some change to wording] > > [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > > [end] > > > > Special Advisors and Chair > > * The need for Special Advisors, their role in > the MAG and criteria for their selection should > be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > mentioned above must be maintained in the > selection of Special Advisors. [some change to > wording] > > * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the > multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should > only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The > host country should be able to nominate a deputy > chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in > context of various issues of logistics for the > annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to > understand the division of work and > responsibility between the two chairs in the > present arrangement? It may be too late to move > over to the suggested new arrangement for the New > Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian > government representative has already taken over > as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > about the post-Delhi phase. > > Role and Structure of the MAG > > With the experience of two years of IGF, it is > also the right time to re-visit the role and the > structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > * One function is of course to make all > arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must > reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We > are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision making processes to make them more > effective. These are especially important if IGF > is to evolve into something more than what it is > today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > mandate. > > * It will be very useful for MAG to work through > working groups. These WGs should prepare for each > main session and the set of workshops connected > to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. > > * We will also like greater clarity at this point > whether MAG has any substantive identity other > than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry > out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', > 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be > able to represent IGF. It looks highly > impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > SG. > > * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate > for the MAG to do. It is something we should > recommended in the other contribution be > addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably) > part of the taking stock/way forward session and > associated workshops.] Having some authority and > identity of its own is also required for MAG to > do some important regular tasks like assessing > how well is the Tunis Agenda mandate being > fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be > done. Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to > undertake, such an exercise? If not MAG, who > would carry out this exercise, which needs to be > done with full engagement of all stakeholders. > > * MAG should prepare an annual report for the > IGF. This report should mention IGF activities > and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and > also outline plans for the year ahead [I think > planning the year ahead impossible given the > evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest > this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General would also satisfy the requirements of > para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for > discussion about the desirability of continuing > the Forum beyond 2010. > > * IGF should actively encourage regional and > national level IGFs, which should be truly > multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. > Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 > of TA. > > replace "Greater financial support for the IGF, > through untied public funds, is one of the > central imperatives for improving the > effectiveness, and consequently, the > meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a > meeting among potential funders is being held in > Geneva around the February consultations on this > issue, and we look forward to some positive > results from that meeting." with New: The > United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is > the outcome of a UN process and should ensure > that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. > [from APC statement] We have great respect and > appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, > while severely under-funded it has still been > responsible for many of IGF's successes. The > Secretariat should be provided with resources > needed to perform its role effectively. In > addition, a fund should be established to support > the participation of people from developing and > least developed countries in the IGF annual > meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > IGF should also fund the participation of at > least 5 members of civil society from developing > and least developed countries to ensure > meaningful participation in its open > consultations. > > In the end, we appeal that we all use the full > term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at > least for official purposes, because > multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect > of the IGF. > > END > > Hope the suggested changes are clear. > > Adam > > > > > >> The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >> input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >> of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >> established as the key global forum for an >> inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >> issues. This has led to different stakeholder >> groups beginning to understand and appreciate >> each others viewpoints, which sets the context >> of a socially and politically engaged >> development of the Internet through appropriate >> policy guidance as required. >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >> also tried new forms of interactions. These are >> all steps in the right direction. However, we >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >> steps toward realizing the full potential of >> this unique global institution. >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on >> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >> Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >> the main sessions. Here we will present some >> suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >> of MAG. >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >> more effective and productive. We appreciate the >> new measures of transparency taken with respect >> to MAG¹s working. We are of the view that MAG >> should work through two elists ­ one open and >> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of >> public importance, normally discussions should >> be open to public scrutiny. However we do >> understand that there can be some circumstances >> requiring closed discussions. All discussions >> taken to the closed list should be listed, and >> summaries of them provided as appropriate. By >> the same rule transcripts should be provided of >> all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless >> some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in >> a closed manner, in which case such topics >> should be listed, and summary of discussions >> provided as appropriate. >> Membership of the MAG >> (text to be decided.) Since the process that >> built towards Meryem/ Ian formulation failed, I >> will request someone to suggest fresh text for >> this. >> Special Advisors and Chair >> · The role and necessity of the Special >> Advisors should be clarified, as also the >> criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >> should be represented in the selection of >> Special Advisors as well. >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping >> with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >> there should only be one chair, nominated by the >> UN SG. The host country should be able to >> nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >> would be helpful in context of various issues of >> logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >> case, we will like to understand the division of >> work and responsibility between the two chairs, >> in the present arrangement? It may be too late >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for >> the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >> government representative has already taken over >> as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >> about the post-Delhi phase. >> Role and Structure of the MAG >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >> also the right time to re-visit the role and the >> structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >> out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >> · One function is of course to make all >> arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >> reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >> function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >> are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision making processes to make them more >> effective. These are especially important if IGF >> is to evolve into something more than what it is >> today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >> its mandate. >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work >> through working groups. These WGs should prepare >> for each main session and the set of workshops >> connected to this main session. WGs can also be >> used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >> effectively. >> · We will also like greater clarity at >> this point whether MAG has any substantive >> identity other than advising the UN SG. For >> instance, to carry out some part of the mandate >> which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, >> identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ >> etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It >> looks highly impractical that these tasks can >> cohere in the UN SG. >> · Having some authority and identity of >> its own is also required for MAG to do some >> important regular tasks like assessing how well >> is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >> the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >> ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >> exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >> exercise, which needs to be done with full >> engagement of all stakeholders. >> · MAG should prepare an annual report >> for the IGF. This report should mention IGF >> activities and performance for the year against >> relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >> mandate, and also outline plans for the year >> ahead. >> · IGF should actively encourage regional >> and national level IGFs, which should be truly >> multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. >> Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph >> 80 of TA. >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through >> untied public funds, is one of the central >> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >> understand that a meeting among potential >> funders is being held in Geneva around the >> February consultations on this issue, and we >> look forward to some positive results from that >> meeting. >> IGF should also fund the participation of at >> least 5 members of civil society from developing >> and least developed countries to ensure >> meaningful participation in its open >> consultations. >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >> term MAG at least for official purposes, because >> multi-stakeholderism is the most important >> aspect of the IGF. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language) >> >> >> Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on >> 'reconstituting MAG' that we are discussing at >> present. (also put below this email) (I am still >> to incorporate changes like ­ removing the >> number 40, removing all numbers as well etc. >> Will do in the morning.) >> >> To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like >> >> ³We appreciate the new measures of transparency >> taken with respect to MAG¹s working. We are of >> the view that MAG should work through two elists >> ­ one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses >> issues of public importance, normally >> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >> However we do understand that there can be some >> circumstances requiring closed discussions. All >> discussions taken to the closed list should be >> listed, and summaries of them provided as >> appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should >> be provided of all face to face meetings of the >> MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to >> be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >> topics should be listed, and summary of >> discussions provided as appropriate.² >> >> Now on this long discussion on the Œtech >> community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to >> getting into any kind of details on the matter >> of how MAG¹s membership should be vis a vis >> different stakeholders, and views in favor of >> saying something simply like ­ CS is >> under-represented and this should be corrected >> in this round (I will pick from the emails and >> construct appropriate language, but basically >> this is the point) >> >> Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There >> are two key parts of the statement, the MAG >> membership part and the ŒMAG role and structure¹ >> part, and in addition some other specific issues. >> >> The part other than on MAG membership received a >> few early comment, and if I remember right, all >> positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further >> comments may also be given. >> >> Now in the MAG membership part, there were three >> substantive parts. Firstly, about how we want >> the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not >> received consensus and will not go in. However, >> the question that now comes up is (about the >> second substantive part) - can we ask for >> clarity from the secretariat on MAG composition, >> quota, stakeholder description etc kind of >> issues without ourselves suggesting anything at >> all. And when we ourselves refuse to be clear on >> these issues. Is it defensible to ask >> secretariat to be clear and share its Œclarity¹ >> as well, in such circumstances. So please let me >> know what to do with this part. We did ask in >> caucus¹s 07 statements for some clarity on these >> issues. >> >> And about the third substantive part, I am also >> not sure how can we ask for self-selection of >> each stakeholder category. I would think >> self-selection will require the secretariat to >> recognize some parameters of what or who can go >> into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking >> them to name all categories, and some definition >> of what constitutes these categoriesŠ Should we >> then ask only for self selection for CS (well, >> hypothetically, if they do agree, we will >> quickly have to resume this discussion that some >> are keen to end, and we will HAVE to establish >> some criteria of who all can be included and who >> cant, and on what grounds etc) >> >> In all these contexts, I am not at all clear >> what can go in this part of the statement. >> Suggestions will be hugely appreciated. >> >> Also pl also close comments on the other parts, >> which have (I think) found no negative comment, >> but still not enough comments. >> >> Parminder >> >> (Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours) >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s >> input on issue of MAG renewal / restructuring >> With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are >> of the opinion that IGF is getting firmly >> established as the key global forum for an >> inclusive dialogue on various Internet policy >> issues. This has led to different stakeholder >> groups beginning to understand and appreciate >> each others viewpoints, which sets the context >> of a socially and politically engaged >> development of the Internet through appropriate >> policy guidance as required. >> Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and >> also tried new forms of interactions. These are >> all steps in the right direction. However, we >> think that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm >> steps toward realizing the full potential of >> this unique global institution. >> In a later statement we will provide inputs on >> possible improvements in the format for IGF, New >> Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in >> the main sessions. Here we will present some >> suggestions regarding renewal and restructuring >> of MAG. >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and >> restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF >> more effective and productive. >> Membership of the MAG >> · We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >> members. One third of MAG members should be >> rotated every year. >> · The rules for membership of the MAG, >> including in terms of representation of >> different stakeholders, should be clearly >> established, and make open along with due >> justifications. We think that as per Tunis >> Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership >> should be divided equally among governments, >> civil society and the business sector. TA also >> rightly recognizes international organizations >> involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and >> they should be allowed an appropriate number of >> seats in the MAG. >> · As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats >> for international organizations, out of the >> remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to >> 11 seats. There are five civil society members >> at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which >> should be corrected in this round of rotation of >> members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we >> replace each retiring member with one from the >> same stakeholder group. Full civil society >> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >> for this new experiment in global governance. >> · Stakeholder representatives should be >> chosen based on appropriate processes of >> self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do >> appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any >> one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >> them, as completely representing the whole of >> that particular stakeholder group. This >> complicates the process of selection, especially >> in the case of civil society and business >> sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >> selecting authority exercising a degree of >> judgment. This, however, should be done in a >> completely transparent manner. Deviations from >> the self-selection processes of stakeholder >> groups should be kept to the minimum and be >> defensible, and normally be explained. >> · All stakeholders should be asked to keep >> in mind the need to adequately represent >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, >> where applicable, special interest groups. >> Special Advisors and Chair >> · The role and necessity of the Special >> Advisors should be clarified, as also the >> criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity >> should be represented in the selection of >> Special Advisors as well. >> · We are of the opinion that in keeping >> with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, >> there should only be one chair, nominated by the >> UN SG. The host country should be able to >> nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that >> would be helpful in context of various issues of >> logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any >> case, we will like to understand the division of >> work and responsibility between the two chairs, >> in the present arrangement? It may be too late >> to move over to this suggested arrangement for >> the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian >> government representative has already taken over >> as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >> about the post-Delhi phase. >> Role and Structure of the MAG >> With the experience of two years of IGF, it is >> also the right time to re-visit the role and the >> structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >> out the functions that MAG is expected to play. >> · One function is of course to make all >> arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must >> reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this >> function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We >> are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision making processes to make them more >> effective. These are especially important if IGF >> is to evolve into something more than what it is >> today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of >> its mandate. >> · It will be very useful for MAG to work >> through working groups. These WGs should prepare >> for each main session and the set of workshops >> connected to this main session. WGs can also be >> used for managing internal tasks of MAG more >> effectively. >> · We will also like greater clarity at this >> point whether MAG has any substantive identity >> other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to >> carry out some part of the mandate which >> requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹, identifying >> issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹ etc, MAG needs >> to be able to represent IGF. It looks highly >> impractical that these tasks can cohere in the >> UN SG. >> · Having some authority and identity of its >> own is also required for MAG to do some >> important regular tasks like assessing how well >> is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by >> the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG >> ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an >> exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this >> exercise, which needs to be done with full >> engagement of all stakeholders. >> · An annual report needs to be submitted by >> the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and >> Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in >> preparing this annual report, at present? It is >> appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this >> report, with engagement of all stakeholder >> members. >> · (Alternate text for the above point since >> CSTD is an inter-governmental body and there is >> nothing very exciting about it. But every >> organization including IGF should have an annual >> report.) MAG should prepare an annual report for >> the IGF. This report should mention IGF >> activities and performance for the year against >> relevant parts of the TA which lays out its >> mandate, and also outline plans for the year >> ahead. >> · IGF should actively encourage regional >> and national level IGFs, and a specific plan >> should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly >> using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >> paragraph 80 of TA. >> Greater financial support for the IGF, through >> untied public funds, is one of the central >> imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and >> consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We >> understand that a meeting among potential >> funders is being held in Geneva around the >> February consultations on this issue, and we >> look forward to some positive results from that >> meeting. >> IGF should also fund the participation of at >> least 5 members of civil society from developing >> and least developed countries to ensure >> meaningful participation in its open >> consultations. >> In the end, we appeal that we all use the full >> term MAG at least for official purposes, because >> multi-stakeholderism is the most important >> aspect of 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) ******************************************************************* Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ******************************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 15:02:45 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:02:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: <3dcd01c8758b$0d6fe500$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3dcd01c8758b$0d6fe500$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here's a last attempt at a set of words for the missing section. At this late stage, rather than commenting generally, as people either suggest amendments, or express agreement or disagreement? Text follows.. here is my amendment: > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > <2nd para cut> > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. My rationale is that in the 2nd para, we say "only 3 SH's please", but in the 3rd we'd be saying "let those others in too". When what we really want to say is "more of us, less of them (gov't reps)" -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 15:06:53 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:06:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - and one last sentence In-Reply-To: <47BF28C1.9030503@rits.org.br> References: <3dda01c8758b$d3851f80$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47BF28C1.9030503@rits.org.br> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > I agree with Peter. I agree with Carlos. (scroll down to see what Carlos Ian and i agree on.) Scroll further down and you will note that I have trimmed several pages of text, which is what i would ask us all to do whenever possible. > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society > > > > I don't remember consensus on this and I believe this sentence should be dropped. CS representation should be equal with government and public sector, that's the bottom line I think, not some percentage of the whole. > > > > > > Can we agree to drop this sentence? > > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 22 15:10:37 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:10:37 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3e0e01c8758f$068ff550$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hey McTim, Can you look again closely before I make any changes? The second paragraph says CS representation should be equal with government and with PS. That's really important, I think. It doesn't in any way say no "technical community" - as is clear from the next paragraph acknowledging a special category of representation- it just says CS should at least equal government and PS so I am reluctant to drop it. Can you live with 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 www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Adam Peake; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here's a last attempt at a set of words for the missing section. At this late stage, rather than commenting generally, as people either suggest amendments, or express agreement or disagreement? Text follows.. here is my amendment: > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > <2nd para cut> > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. My rationale is that in the 2nd para, we say "only 3 SH's please", but in the 3rd we'd be saying "let those others in too". When what we really want to say is "more of us, less of them (gov't reps)" -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 15:14:55 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:14:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3e1b01c8758f$a0497180$8b00a8c0@IAN> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented equally. Then full statement reads The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented equally. We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Adam Peake; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here's a last attempt at a set of words for the missing section. At this late stage, rather than commenting generally, as people either suggest amendments, or express agreement or disagreement? Text follows.. here is my amendment: > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > <2nd para cut> > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. My rationale is that in the 2nd para, we say "only 3 SH's please", but in the 3rd we'd be saying "let those others in too". When what we really want to say is "more of us, less of them (gov't reps)" -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 15:30:28 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:30:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: <3e1b01c8758f$a0497180$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3e1b01c8758f$a0497180$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if > you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH groups). Can you live with that? So now it would read: The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups if you prefer] We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 22 15:38:55 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:38:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3e6701c87592$fb75b750$8b00a8c0@IAN> Yep I'll buy that and then we have consensus! I'll repost with a separate heading the following (and ask for agreement) The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if > you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH groups). Can you live with that? So now it would read: The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups if you prefer] We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 15:44:49 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:44:49 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if > you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH groups). Can you live with that? So now it would read: The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups if you prefer] We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Feb 22 16:13:40 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:13:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <47BF3B04.50000@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > deployment and success. Ditto. I remember when I was at Sun in the early 1990's when the idea of IPv6 was born. And even then people were saying - "hey, the real problem is not addresses but, rather, routing." IPv6 doesn't help routing at all, in fact, because it doesn't share with IPv4, it adds an additional burden without alleviating the existing burden. And I remember ISO/OSI and the mandates of GOSIP and MAP and TOP. That entire brouhaha lasted less time than the decade+ gestation we have seen for IPv6 so far. And I have yet to obtain a real answer of how I can deploy a new IPv6 network without simultaneously having to deploy a parallel IPv4 network - every time I need an IPv6 block I'm going to need an IPv4 block. All of those devices on store shelves are V4 only. And I have yet to see really good answers to the question of how an IPv6 client (user sitting at a web broswer) is going to seemlessly reach and use all of those IPv4-only services out there on the installed base internet. In my mind I perceive IPv6 as a new internet that lays alongside the existing IPv4 internet. It shares the physical wires, yes, but not much else. Apart from IPv4 address scarcity - a problem that we have learned to resolve in large part through NATs, there is not a lot of pressure to move. It is still my opinion that we are headed for a lumpy internet - with lumps of address spaces connected by application level gateways. Such a lumpy internet would resemble the cellular telephone networks in that a few services - such as voice calls - easily and fairly transparently cross the boundaries. But those boundaries will become difficult to traverse for new things or for user-created tools; innovation from the edge will be limited to occur only within a lump not across lumps. Of course, such a lumpy internet would require a partitioned, but consistent set of DNS systems and root servers. That would end the authority-by-grace-of-singuarity that is enjoyed by bodies such as ICANN. And the routing problem remains, but with a lumpy network and well known application level gateways the routing problem becomes one of reaching the ALG's rather than reaching every possible end point on the total internet. A lumpy internet is to many of us a prospect that is unpleasant. But I have concern that it may be unavoidable or, if avoidable, will occur anyway as the political forces of national governments looking to their own drive the ip-geography of the net to conform to the physical geography of national and regional borders. --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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 16:17:31 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:17:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:50 AM, William Drake wrote: > .. more expensive, worse layovers, with fewer airlines having direct inbound service It's difficult from California too, and to have a day or two for recovery from 13+ hour jet leg, it will mean traveling over Thanksgiving weekend. My first reaction is that I won't be coming; that's very disappointing. The Novotel is the HICC hotel, $200+ / night; I don't see other lodging within walking distance. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 22 16:46:14 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:46:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <3fb001c8759c$62c53b20$8b00a8c0@IAN> EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my previous wording and I hope will find it acceptable. We now have The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented equally] We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if > you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH groups). Can you live with that? So now it would read: The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups if you prefer] We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society participation. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 17:15:39 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:15:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <3fb001c8759c$62c53b20$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3fb001c8759c$62c53b20$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47BF498B.2040605@wzb.eu> Yes, that is much better. It is not clear to everyone yet that governments have turned into mere stakeholders :-) jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not > ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. > > In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s > multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business > sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we > have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my previous > wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > > We now have > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > [We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, > governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented > equally] > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil > society participation. > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section > > Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty > good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership > should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil > society participation. > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > > 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > > I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH > groups). > > Can you live with that? > > So now it would read: > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly > established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups > if you prefer] > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil society participation. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 18:02:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:32:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <47BF498B.2040605@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080222230250.2728DA6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net> And I think it will be clearer to say > However, their representation should not be at the expense of > civil society participation. Rather than > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil society participation. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:46 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > section > > Yes, that is much better. It is not clear to everyone yet that > governments have turned into mere stakeholders :-) > > jeanette > > Ian Peter wrote: > > EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will > not > > ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. > > > > In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda's > > multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business > > sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think > we > > have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my > previous > > wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > > > > We now have > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of > > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > > [We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > > governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented > > equally] > > > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet > > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards > > should continue to be represented in the MAG. > > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > > society participation. > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > > Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > section > > > > Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a > pretty > > good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of > > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > > should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > > > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet > > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards > > should continue to be represented in the MAG. > > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > > society participation. > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > > > > 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim > if > >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > > > > I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest > this: > > > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH > > groups). > > > > Can you live with that? > > > > So now it would read: > > > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > > representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly > > established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil > > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > > experiment in global governance. > > > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups > > if you prefer] > > > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > > civil society participation. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 22 18:03:25 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:03:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> References: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> Jeanette Hofmann [22/02/08 15:09 +0000]: > Hi, > > now its official. The IGF meeting will take place in Hyderabad from 3-6 > December 2008. The Hyderabad International Convention Center (HICC) was > chosen as the venue for the meeting. > The secretariat has visited the venue last week and is very happy with the > choice. The hotel situation seems to be much better in Hyderabad. > jeanette Jesus. We checked that venue out and rejected it about a couple of years ago, for another conference, as - 1. Fairly far from the main city (and along very crowded roads) 2. The only large hotel that's at a walkable distance - the novotel - was quoting $225++ rates for the conference (though I could easily see $150 type rates for the same hotel online, on the novotel website) 3. Other hotels are at least half an hour or more away (and as I said, hyderabad traffic can get very very crowded, especially if the "flyovers" (overpasses) they have been building all over the place havent been completed 4. Other than that, the city is a fun place, great food etc etc. Besides the usual issues about direct flights from multiple international destinations. Its much better right now - but the new airport in hyderabad - coming into place in March - is over 70 kilometers from the city, and while the airport is ready, the access road sure as hell isnt. The current joke is that it will take you 3 hours to fly there from Singapore, and 3:30 hrs to drive from the airport to the city, unless you take a scheduled copter shuttle service someone's launching there (Deccan Aviation I think) Disclaimer - I lived over 12 years in hyderabad, but that was 6 years back, and my last trip to hyderabad was around 5..6 months back (I visit occasionally as my parents live near there) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Feb 22 18:45:46 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:45:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> References: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> Message-ID: I just came back from ICANN meeting at Delhi. IF you want to have a decent quality with inexpensive costs, perhaps you better forget about *some* cities in develpoing countries. Many people are not too happy about the venue and technical conditions at Delhi. At the open mic, I said something contrary. Sometimes they are the kind of reality people there are living with. It is the reality of the region. I am not sure how good or bad Hederabard is, but given various situations, I trust the host and the secretariat that they made the "best efforst" if not more. Sometimes (not always), it gives you a great experience and exposure to live in less than ideal envitornment, face some difficulties, and leanr more. It's worth spending some money. izumi 2008/2/23, Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Jeanette Hofmann [22/02/08 15:09 +0000]: > > > Hi, > > > > now its official. The IGF meeting will take place in Hyderabad from 3-6 > > December 2008. The Hyderabad International Convention Center (HICC) was > > chosen as the venue for the meeting. > > The secretariat has visited the venue last week and is very happy with the > > choice. The hotel situation seems to be much better in Hyderabad. > > jeanette > > > Jesus. We checked that venue out and rejected it about a couple of years > ago, for another conference, as - > > 1. Fairly far from the main city (and along very crowded roads) > > 2. The only large hotel that's at a walkable distance - the novotel - was > quoting $225++ rates for the conference (though I could easily see $150 > type rates for the same hotel online, on the novotel website) > > 3. Other hotels are at least half an hour or more away (and as I said, > hyderabad traffic can get very very crowded, especially if the "flyovers" > (overpasses) they have been building all over the place havent been > completed > > 4. Other than that, the city is a fun place, great food etc etc. > > Besides the usual issues about direct flights from multiple international > destinations. Its much better right now - but the new airport in hyderabad > - coming into place in March - is over 70 kilometers from the city, and > while the airport is ready, the access road sure as hell isnt. The current > joke is that it will take you 3 hours to fly there from Singapore, and 3:30 > hrs to drive from the airport to the city, unless you take a scheduled > copter shuttle service someone's launching there (Deccan Aviation I think) > > Disclaimer - I lived over 12 years in hyderabad, but that was 6 years back, > and my last trip to hyderabad was around 5..6 months back (I visit > occasionally as my parents live near there) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 22 21:43:09 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:43:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> References: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> Message-ID: Markus wrote "Our Indian hosts will give us a presentation of the venue at the consultations Tuesday." So let's to wait and see what they say, and can ask them to put presentations online. Sylvia: sorry about the distance, but where ever the meeting's held it's going to be a 24 hour flight for someone (Rio from Tokyo for example.) Adam At 3:03 PM -0800 2/22/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Jeanette Hofmann [22/02/08 15:09 +0000]: >>Hi, >> >>now its official. The IGF meeting will take place in Hyderabad from >>3-6 December 2008. The Hyderabad International Convention Center >>(HICC) was chosen as the venue for the meeting. >>The secretariat has visited the venue last week and is very happy >>with the choice. The hotel situation seems to be much better in >>Hyderabad. >>jeanette > >Jesus. We checked that venue out and rejected it about a couple of years >ago, for another conference, as - > >1. Fairly far from the main city (and along very crowded roads) > >2. The only large hotel that's at a walkable distance - the novotel - was >quoting $225++ rates for the conference (though I could easily see $150 >type rates for the same hotel online, on the novotel website) > >3. Other hotels are at least half an hour or more away (and as I said, >hyderabad traffic can get very very crowded, especially if the "flyovers" >(overpasses) they have been building all over the place havent been >completed > >4. Other than that, the city is a fun place, great food etc etc. > >Besides the usual issues about direct flights from multiple international >destinations. Its much better right now - but the new airport in hyderabad >- coming into place in March - is over 70 kilometers from the city, and >while the airport is ready, the access road sure as hell isnt. The current >joke is that it will take you 3 hours to fly there from Singapore, and 3:30 >hrs to drive from the airport to the city, unless you take a scheduled >copter shuttle service someone's launching there (Deccan Aviation I think) > >Disclaimer - I lived over 12 years in hyderabad, but that was 6 years back, >and my last trip to hyderabad was around 5..6 months back (I visit >occasionally as my parents live near there) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 22:57:50 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:57:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: <3fb001c8759c$62c53b20$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3fb001c8759c$62c53b20$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: No, I do not support stating there are three stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. I'd also like to see where this proposed text would fit within the full draft. Too confusing with too many different drafts flying around. Would be better to keep documents whole as possible. Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph "* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as small as possible, something to that effect could easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while large enough to enure the diversity of interests are represented. Not more than 40...) For the other two paragraphs it seems you're reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have the same problems with them now as I did a few days ago. And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. Adam >EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not >ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. > >In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business >sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we >have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my previous >wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > >We now have > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, >governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented >equally] > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation. > >Ian Peter >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com >www.internetmark2.org >www.nethistory.info > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section > >Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty >good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation. > >Ian Peter >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com >www.internetmark2.org >www.nethistory.info > > >-----Original Message----- >From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 >To: Ian Peter >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder >Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > >2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > >I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH >groups). > >Can you live with that? > >So now it would read: > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >experiment in global governance. > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups >if you prefer] > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in >Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >civil society participation. > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >____________________________________________________________ > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 22 23:09:25 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:09:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <422701c875d1$e9ffcfd0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Adam I was picking up on >(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian >formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. I now realize that the new text which follows actually covers a lot of this quite well, so am happy for that to stand (without the one quarter reference, thanks for that) Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 23 February 2008 14:58 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing No, I do not support stating there are three stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. I'd also like to see where this proposed text would fit within the full draft. Too confusing with too many different drafts flying around. Would be better to keep documents whole as possible. Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: [start] * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. [all the stuff about numbers deleted] * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of the last sentence, think they were too much to demand] * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. [some change to wording] [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] [end] So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph "* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as small as possible, something to that effect could easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while large enough to enure the diversity of interests are represented. Not more than 40...) For the other two paragraphs it seems you're reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have the same problems with them now as I did a few days ago. And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. Adam >EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not >ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. > >In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business >sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we >have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my previous >wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > >We now have > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, >governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented >equally] > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation. > >Ian Peter >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com >www.internetmark2.org >www.nethistory.info > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section > >Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty >good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >society participation. > >Ian Peter >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com >www.internetmark2.org >www.nethistory.info > > >-----Original Message----- >From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 >To: Ian Peter >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder >Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > >2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > >I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH >groups). > >Can you live with that? > >So now it would read: > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >experiment in global governance. > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups >if you prefer] > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in >Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >civil society participation. > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >____________________________________________________________ > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Feb 23 01:01:17 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:01:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <47BEE5AD.3050500@wzb.eu> <20080222230325.GE21622@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080223060117.GD27901@hserus.net> Izumi AIZU [23/02/08 08:45 +0900]: >I just came back from ICANN meeting at Delhi. > >IF you want to have a decent quality with inexpensive costs, >perhaps you better forget about *some* cities in develpoing Delhi has pollution issues, is extremely expensive etc. Bombay too. But they are the places with the best international connectivity. The HICC is new .. and Hyderabad is a smaller, nicer city (as is Chennai) As for less ideal than that, you could always do IGF in a place like Manila. Yes, it does make a refreshing (!) change from holding IGF in beach resorts, and you might actually get work done as people come there focused on getting the job over and done with rather than wasting time on tourism and shopping .. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 01:39:52 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:39:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: <422701c875d1$e9ffcfd0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <422701c875d1$e9ffcfd0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: >Adam I was picking up on > >>(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian >>formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. > >I now realize that the new text which follows actually covers a lot of this >quite well, so am happy for that to stand (without the one quarter >reference, thanks for that) So what parts would you edit and leave? Not clear to me where we're at. Adam >Ian Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sent: 23 February 2008 14:58 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > >No, I do not support stating there are three >stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. > >I'd also like to see where this proposed text >would fit within the full draft. Too confusing >with too many different drafts flying around. >Would be better to keep documents whole as >possible. > >Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: > >[start] >* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. > >* In the interest of transparency and >understanding the responsibilities of MAG >members, when making appointments to the MAG we >ask the Secretary General to explain which >interested group that person is associated with. > >* Civil society has been under represented in the >multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected >in this round of rotation and a fair balance of >members between all stakeholders assured. At >least one quarter of the MAG membership must be >drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >[all the stuff about numbers deleted] > >* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen >based on appropriate processes of self-selection >by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it >is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder >entity, or even a given set of them, as >completely representing the whole of that >particular stakeholder group. This complicates >the process of selection, especially in the case >of civil society and business sectors, and makes >for some scope for the final selecting authority >exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, >should be done in a completely transparent >manner. Deviations from the self-selection >processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to >the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of >the last sentence, think they were too much to >demand] > >* When recommending members of the MAG all >stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of >gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >interest groups. [some change to wording] > >[no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > >[end] > > >So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one >quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. > >In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a >good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph >"* Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as >small as possible, something to that effect could >easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while >large enough to enure the diversity of interests >are represented. Not more than 40...) > >For the other two paragraphs it seems you're >reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have >the same problems with them now as I did a few >days ago. > >And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. > >Adam > > > >>EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not >>ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. >> >>In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >>multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business >>sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we >>have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my >previous >>wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > > >>We now have >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >of >>different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >>with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> >>[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, >>governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented >>equally] >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >>should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>society participation. >> >>Ian Peter >>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >>Australia >>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>www.ianpeter.com >>www.internetmark2.org >>www.nethistory.info >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >>Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' >>Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section >> >>Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty >>good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >of >>different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >>with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >>should be divided equally among Stakeholders. >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >>should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>society participation. >> >>Ian Peter >>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >>Australia >>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>www.ianpeter.com >>www.internetmark2.org >>www.nethistory.info >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 >>To: Ian Peter >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder >>Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section >> >>2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >>> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim >if >>> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft >> >>I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >>membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH >>groups). >> >>Can you live with that? >> >>So now it would read: >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >>established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil >>society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >>experiment in global governance. >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >>membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups >>if you prefer] >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in >>Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >>technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >>civil society participation. >> >>-- >>Cheers, >> >>McTim >>$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >>____________________________________________________________ >> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 01:46:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:16:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223064659.44830A6C7E@smtp2.electricembers.net> This is trying to fit Ian/ McTim compromise text in earlier Adam's. > No, I do not support stating there are three > stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. Ok, we can drop that. If that’s the main problem. Though the three way logic tries to keep to the basic three way division of society institutions - those of governance, of market, and (residual) civil society. And add special categories as per context. > I'd also like to see where this proposed text > would fit within the full draft. Take some parts of Ian's first para and add in appropriate place in Adam's for it to read. "* In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. And after > * Civil society has been under represented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected > in this round of rotation and a fair balance of > members between all stakeholders assured. At > least one quarter of the MAG membership must be > drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. (Adam's text) Add "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation." This fits Ian/ McTim to Adam's text, while removing the problem part of the number of stakeholders. Together the whole text in the section "*Membership of the MAG*" if the 'reconstituting MAG will then read. * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. (end) The text is long, but depending on time allocation - and it is expected that a fair amount of discussion may take place on MAG composition - we can read out an excerpted text, and make the whole statement available in print. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > > No, I do not support stating there are three > stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. > > I'd also like to see where this proposed text > would fit within the full draft. Too confusing > with too many different drafts flying around. > Would be better to keep documents whole as > possible. > > Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: > > [start] > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be > rotated every year. > > * In the interest of transparency and > understanding the responsibilities of MAG > members, when making appointments to the MAG we > ask the Secretary General to explain which > interested group that person is associated with. > > * Civil society has been under represented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected > in this round of rotation and a fair balance of > members between all stakeholders assured. At > least one quarter of the MAG membership must be > drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. > [all the stuff about numbers deleted] > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen > based on appropriate processes of self-selection > by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it > is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder > entity, or even a given set of them, as > completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates > the process of selection, especially in the case > of civil society and business sectors, and makes > for some scope for the final selecting authority > exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, > should be done in a completely transparent > manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to > the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of > the last sentence, think they were too much to > demand] > > * When recommending members of the MAG all > stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of > gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. [some change to wording] > > [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > > [end] > > > So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one > quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. > > In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a > good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph > "* Stakeholder representatives should be > chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as > small as possible, something to that effect could > easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while > large enough to enure the diversity of interests > are represented. Not more than 40...) > > For the other two paragraphs it seems you're > reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have > the same problems with them now as I did a few > days ago. > > And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. > > Adam > > > > >EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will > not > >ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. > > > >In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s > >multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business > >sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think > we > >have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my > previous > >wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > > > >We now have > > > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > >[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, > >governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented > >equally] > > > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > >administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards > >should continue to be represented in the MAG. > >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > >society participation. > > > >Ian Peter > >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > >Australia > >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >www.ianpeter.com > >www.internetmark2.org > >www.nethistory.info > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > >Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' > >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > section > > > >Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a > pretty > >good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > > > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation > of > >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > along > >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary > to > >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership > >should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > > > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > >administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards > >should continue to be represented in the MAG. > >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil > >society participation. > > > >Ian Peter > >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > >Australia > >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >www.ianpeter.com > >www.internetmark2.org > >www.nethistory.info > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 > >To: Ian Peter > >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder > >Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > > > >2008/2/22 Ian Peter : > >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - > MtTim if > >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > > > >I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: > > > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH > >groups). > > > >Can you live with that? > > > >So now it would read: > > > >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly > >established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil > >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > >experiment in global governance. > > > >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups > >if you prefer] > > > >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > >Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > >technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > >civil society participation. > > > >-- > >Cheers, > > > >McTim > >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > >____________________________________________________________ > > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: > 22/02/2008 > >09:21 > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: > 22/02/2008 > >09:21 > > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: > 22/02/2008 > >09:21 > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 01:50:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:20:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements Message-ID: <20080223065052.54F62E249D@smtp3.electricembers.net> We have about 12 hours to go to try and start the consensus process of 48 hours. I see not much interest in main session themes. Ok, I will propose them anyway as they stand, but comments are welcome in the next 12 hours. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 23 01:57:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:27:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20080223065052.54F62E249D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080223065746.24A3267891@smtp1.electricembers.net> Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to Geneva for IGF consultations meet briefly before the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any suggestions for a meeting place. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 12:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC statements -------------- 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 Sat Feb 23 01:56:42 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:56:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <443301c875e9$46994a20$8b00a8c0@IAN> >Not clear to me where we're at Join the club! Anyway I am happy to either accept the Parminder formula just posted or to drop the text I proposed altogether. Not much time now, and I believe either way the draft is fine. Would like to see the one quarter reference dropped though. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 23 February 2008 17:40 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing >Adam I was picking up on > >>(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian >>formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this. > >I now realize that the new text which follows actually covers a lot of this >quite well, so am happy for that to stand (without the one quarter >reference, thanks for that) So what parts would you edit and leave? Not clear to me where we're at. Adam >Ian Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sent: 23 February 2008 14:58 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing > >No, I do not support stating there are three >stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. > >I'd also like to see where this proposed text >would fit within the full draft. Too confusing >with too many different drafts flying around. >Would be better to keep documents whole as >possible. > >Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: > >[start] >* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >members. One third of MAG members should be >rotated every year. > >* In the interest of transparency and >understanding the responsibilities of MAG >members, when making appointments to the MAG we >ask the Secretary General to explain which >interested group that person is associated with. > >* Civil society has been under represented in the >multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected >in this round of rotation and a fair balance of >members between all stakeholders assured. At >least one quarter of the MAG membership must be >drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >for this new experiment in global governance. >[all the stuff about numbers deleted] > >* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen >based on appropriate processes of self-selection >by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it >is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder >entity, or even a given set of them, as >completely representing the whole of that >particular stakeholder group. This complicates >the process of selection, especially in the case >of civil society and business sectors, and makes >for some scope for the final selecting authority >exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, >should be done in a completely transparent >manner. Deviations from the self-selection >processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to >the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of >the last sentence, think they were too much to >demand] > >* When recommending members of the MAG all >stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of >gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >interest groups. [some change to wording] > >[no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] > >[end] > > >So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one >quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. > >In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a >good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph >"* Stakeholder representatives should be >chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as >small as possible, something to that effect could >easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while >large enough to enure the diversity of interests >are represented. Not more than 40...) > >For the other two paragraphs it seems you're >reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have >the same problems with them now as I did a few >days ago. > >And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. > >Adam > > > >>EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will not >>ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. >> >>In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >>multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business >>sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think we >>have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my >previous >>wording and I hope will find it acceptable. > > >>We now have >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >of >>different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >>with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> >>[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, >>governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented >>equally] >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >>should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>society participation. >> >>Ian Peter >>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >>Australia >>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>www.ianpeter.com >>www.internetmark2.org >>www.nethistory.info >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >>Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' >>Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section >> >>Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty >>good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >of >>different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along >>with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to >>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership >>should be divided equally among Stakeholders. >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >>should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil >>society participation. >> >>Ian Peter >>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >>Australia >>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>www.ianpeter.com >>www.internetmark2.org >>www.nethistory.info >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 >>To: Ian Peter >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder >>Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section >> >>2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >>> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim >if >>> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft >> >>I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >>membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH >>groups). >> >>Can you live with that? >> >>So now it would read: >> >>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >>established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil >>society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >>experiment in global governance. >> >>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >>membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups >>if you prefer] >> >>We also agree that the organizations having an important role in >>Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >>technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >>civil society participation. >> >>-- >>Cheers, >> >>McTim >>$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >>____________________________________________________________ >> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >>09:21 >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 >09:21 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 02:13:23 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:13:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: <443301c875e9$46994a20$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <443301c875e9$46994a20$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >Not clear to me where we're at it seems we are here: * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. (end) > > Join the club! Anyway I am happy to either accept the Parminder formula just > posted or to drop the text I proposed altogether. Not much time now, and I > believe either way the draft is fine. > > Would like to see the one quarter reference dropped though. It has been AFAICS, but I haven't finished my frst coffee yet ;-P In any case, I have no objection to the above text. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 02:19:34 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:19:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: <20080223064659.44830A6C7E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080223064659.44830A6C7E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks. How would you see the whole statement reading now. Can you copy in the text as you think revised? Thanks, Adam >This is trying to fit Ian/ McTim compromise text in earlier Adam's. > >> No, I do not support stating there are three >> stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. > >Ok, we can drop that. If that’s the main problem. Though the three way logic >tries to keep to the basic three way division of society institutions - >those of governance, of market, and (residual) civil society. And add >special categories as per context.   > > >> I'd also like to see where this proposed text >> would fit within the full draft.  > >Take some parts of Ian's first para and add in appropriate place in Adam's >for it to read. > >"* In the interest of transparency and >understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments >to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group >that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should >be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. > > >And after > >> * Civil society has been under represented in the >> multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >> 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected >> in this round of rotation and a fair balance of >> members between all stakeholders assured. At >> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be >> drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society >> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >> for this new experiment in global governance. (Adam's text) > >Add > >"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society >participation." > >This fits Ian/ McTim to Adam's text, while removing the problem part of the >number of stakeholders. > > >Together the whole text in the section "*Membership of the MAG*" if the >'reconstituting MAG will then read. > >* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG >members should be rotated every year. > >* In the interest of transparency and >understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments >to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group >that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should >be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. > >* Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory >groups appointed in >2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation >and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >experiment in global governance. > >* We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > >* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate >processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it >is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder >group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of >civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should >be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the >self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the >minimum.  > >* When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >interest groups. >(end) > >The text is long, but depending on time allocation - and it is expected that >a fair amount of discussion may take place on MAG composition - we can read >out an excerpted text, and make the whole statement available in print. > > >Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:28 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing >> >> No, I do not support stating there are three >> stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda. >> >> I'd also like to see where this proposed text >> would fit within the full draft. Too confusing >> with too many different drafts flying around. >> Would be better to keep documents whole as >> possible. >> >> Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read: >> >> [start] >> * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG >> members. One third of MAG members should be >> rotated every year. >> >> * In the interest of transparency and >> understanding the responsibilities of MAG >> members, when making appointments to the MAG we >> ask the Secretary General to explain which >> interested group that person is associated with. >> >> * Civil society has been under represented in the >> multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >> 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected >> in this round of rotation and a fair balance of >> members between all stakeholders assured. At >> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be >> drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society >> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy >> for this new experiment in global governance. >> [all the stuff about numbers deleted] >> >> * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen >> based on appropriate processes of self-selection >> by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it >> is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder >> entity, or even a given set of them, as >> completely representing the whole of that >> particular stakeholder group. This complicates >> the process of selection, especially in the case >> of civil society and business sectors, and makes >> for some scope for the final selecting authority >> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, >> should be done in a completely transparent >> manner. Deviations from the self-selection >> processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to >> the minimum. [some words deleted from the end of >> the last sentence, think they were too much to >> demand] >> >> * When recommending members of the MAG all >> stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of >> gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >> interest groups. [some change to wording] >> >> [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS] >> >> [end] >> >> >> So. Yes, happy with deleting "At least one >> quarter..." etc from the third paragraph. >> >> In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a >> good number..." etc? And keeping the paragraph >> "* Stakeholder representatives should be >> chosen..." etc ? Milton thinks it should be as >> small as possible, something to that effect could >> easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while >> large enough to enure the diversity of interests >> are represented. Not more than 40...) >> >> For the other two paragraphs it seems you're >> reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have >> the same problems with them now as I did a few >> days ago. >> >> And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will >> not >> >ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder. >> > >> >In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s >> >multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business >> >sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think >> we >> >have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my >> previous >> >wording and I hope will find it acceptable. >> > >> >We now have >> > >> >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >> of >> >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open > > along >> >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary >> to >> >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> > >> >[We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, >> >governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented >> >equally] >> > >> >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> >administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards >> >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >> >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >> civil >> >society participation. >> > >> >Ian Peter >> >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >> >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >> >Australia >> >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >www.ianpeter.com >> >www.internetmark2.org >> >www.nethistory.info >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45 >> >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >> >Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder' >> >Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing >> section >> > >> >Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a >> pretty >> >good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? >> > >> >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation >> of >> >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open >> along >> >with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary >> to >> >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> > >> >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >> membership >> >should be divided equally among Stakeholders. >> > >> >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> >administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards >> >should continue to be represented in the MAG. >> >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >> civil >> >society participation. >> > >> >Ian Peter >> >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >> >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >> >Australia >> >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >www.ianpeter.com >> >www.internetmark2.org >> >www.nethistory.info >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> >Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 >> >To: Ian Peter >> >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder >> >Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section >> > >> >2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >> >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - >> MtTim if >> >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft >> > >> >I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: >> > >> >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >> >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH >> >groups). >> > >> >Can you live with that? >> > >> >So now it would read: >> > >> >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of >> >representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly >> >established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil >> >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >> >experiment in global governance. >> > >> >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, >> >membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups >> >if you prefer] >> > >> >We also agree that the organizations having an important role in >> >Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >> >technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >> >However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader >> >civil society participation. >> > >> >-- >> >Cheers, >> > >> >McTim >> >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >> >____________________________________________________________ >> > >> > >> >No virus found in this outgoing message. >> >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: >> 22/02/2008 >> >09:21 >> > >> > >> >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: >> 22/02/2008 >> >09:21 >> > >> > >> >No virus found in this outgoing message. >> >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: >> 22/02/2008 >> >09:21 >> > >> > >> >____________________________________________________________ >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 02:22:00 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:22:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223065052.54F62E249D@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080223065052.54F62E249D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 12:20 PM +0530 2/23/08, Parminder wrote: >We have about 12 hours to go to try and start the consensus process >of 48 hours. > >I see not much interest in main session themes. Ok, I will propose >them anyway as they stand, but comments are welcome in the next 12 >hours. Thanks. Parminder. suggest dropping the text on *3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities"* and *6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues.* as neither has been updated or really discussed (I don't know what we getting ourselves into with the "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities", and not understanding it can't really support it.) People can always send in their own comments: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 23 02:54:50 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:54:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20080223065746.24A3267891@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I meant to ask about whether we are doing a meeting and if locals should secure a room during the lunch hour, but amidst all the ontological debates forgot, sorry. I wouldn¹t count on a 9am meeting working too well. Unless everyone commits to getting up rather early to be first in line, most people will be standing outside the security office waiting to get badges, will show up late at varying times, etc. People could just cluster outside the meeting room door when they arrive for some brief coordination re: the consultation itself, if needed. But if we want to have a broader discussion about caucus affairs that won¹t work then. Probably too late now, but if there¹s critical mass Philippe or I could at least inquire about a lunchtime meeting room. It is also often possible to simply squat in one of the smaller meeting rooms on the first floor since governments don¹t do working lunches in these parts, but if some overly rule-oriented guard notices we might have to evacuate to the lounge etc. Or we could just grab a table at the back of the cafeteria, usually possible. Don¹t know how many people are coming, whether that¹d work logistically, acoustically... BTW on caucus interventions, it might be sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not me) read at least one of the three statements, no? Or do we want to look like CS is top down, centralized, blah blah blah... Best, Bill On 2/23/08 7:57 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to Geneva for IGF consultations > meet briefly before the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any > suggestions for a meeting place. 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 Sat Feb 23 02:54:57 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:54:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <44c001c875f1$698a0440$8b00a8c0@IAN> Agree with both of Adam's comments - but if we can morph the sustainable communities to include the climate change theme proposed by others I have no great objection -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 23 February 2008 18:22 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statements At 12:20 PM +0530 2/23/08, Parminder wrote: >We have about 12 hours to go to try and start the consensus process >of 48 hours. > >I see not much interest in main session themes. Ok, I will propose >them anyway as they stand, but comments are welcome in the next 12 >hours. Thanks. Parminder. suggest dropping the text on *3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities"* and *6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues.* as neither has been updated or really discussed (I don't know what we getting ourselves into with the "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities", and not understanding it can't really support it.) People can always send in their own comments: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 03:12:47 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:42:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223081250.0FF4CA6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net> >BTW on caucus interventions, it might be sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not me) read at least one of the >three statements, no? Or do we want to look like CS is top down, centralized, blah blah blah... Of course all statements will be read by different people. CS need to show as much breadth and diversity as possible. In fact I am even for reading them in a chorus :-). On other things a little later. Parminder _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:25 PM To: Singh, Parminder; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva Parminder, I meant to ask about whether we are doing a meeting and if locals should secure a room during the lunch hour, but amidst all the ontological debates forgot, sorry. I wouldn't count on a 9am meeting working too well. Unless everyone commits to getting up rather early to be first in line, most people will be standing outside the security office waiting to get badges, will show up late at varying times, etc. People could just cluster outside the meeting room door when they arrive for some brief coordination re: the consultation itself, if needed. But if we want to have a broader discussion about caucus affairs that won't work then. Probably too late now, but if there's critical mass Philippe or I could at least inquire about a lunchtime meeting room. It is also often possible to simply squat in one of the smaller meeting rooms on the first floor since governments don't do working lunches in these parts, but if some overly rule-oriented guard notices we might have to evacuate to the lounge etc. Or we could just grab a table at the back of the cafeteria, usually possible. Don't know how many people are coming, whether that'd work logistically, acoustically... BTW on caucus interventions, it might be sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not me) read at least one of the three statements, no? Or do we want to look like CS is top down, centralized, blah blah blah... Best, Bill On 2/23/08 7:57 AM, "Parminder" wrote: Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to Geneva for IGF consultations meet briefly before the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any suggestions for a meeting place. 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 Sat Feb 23 03:31:37 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:01:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223083139.5AC49E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Statements on main themes and IGF format stand as forwarded by Jeanette, I have yet to include any changes that may have been suggested for these. Off hand I remember, Adam asking for including text on calling for workshop proposals immediately, Bill, for putting in stuff on 'assessment and way forward session' and linking our IGF mandate workshop to it, and again Adam on removing sustainable communities, and netizens main these suggestions. I will look into earlier emails to take up any other suggestion, if there. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 12:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statements > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 03:29:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:59:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223082945.24BF7E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> The draft on reconstituting MAG stands as follows. Adam, I have removed stuff you recommended removing, including the para on MAG assessing IGF's performance on fulfilling mandate, and slightly modified the para before that. I have removed three paras from the opening part, and moved special advisors and chairs part to the end, which the speaker may run over quickly if constrained for time. Parminder . (the draft of reconstituting MAG) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring At the outset, of this statement on renewal of MAG, the civil Society IGC appeals that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as appropriate. Membership of the MAG * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. Role and Structure of the MAG With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list out the functions that MAG is expected to play. * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG more effectively. * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA. Funding of IGF, and Participation *The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We have great respect and appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. * In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. (more text on participation of currently under-represented communities to be added here, as per Izumi's email. Ill try that in a while) (Lastly on) Special Advisors and Chair * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Delhi phase. END > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 03:46:41 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:16:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223084645.14B4F67825@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill (and others) Yes, I agree that pre-consultation morning meeting is difficult with all the time needed to be spent at the security office. But lets do a bit of 'cluster together' before the meeting, while meeting other people we may be meeting. A quick discussion about the day, and stuff. We can have a longer meeting as you suggest at lunch time. Parminder _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:25 PM To: Singh, Parminder; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva Parminder, I meant to ask about whether we are doing a meeting and if locals should secure a room during the lunch hour, but amidst all the ontological debates forgot, sorry. I wouldn't count on a 9am meeting working too well. Unless everyone commits to getting up rather early to be first in line, most people will be standing outside the security office waiting to get badges, will show up late at varying times, etc. People could just cluster outside the meeting room door when they arrive for some brief coordination re: the consultation itself, if needed. But if we want to have a broader discussion about caucus affairs that won't work then. Probably too late now, but if there's critical mass Philippe or I could at least inquire about a lunchtime meeting room. It is also often possible to simply squat in one of the smaller meeting rooms on the first floor since governments don't do working lunches in these parts, but if some overly rule-oriented guard notices we might have to evacuate to the lounge etc. Or we could just grab a table at the back of the cafeteria, usually possible. Don't know how many people are coming, whether that'd work logistically, acoustically... BTW on caucus interventions, it might be sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not me) read at least one of the three statements, no? Or do we want to look like CS is top down, centralized, blah blah blah... Best, Bill On 2/23/08 7:57 AM, "Parminder" wrote: Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to Geneva for IGF consultations meet briefly before the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any suggestions for a meeting place. 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 Sat Feb 23 03:47:54 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:17:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223083139.5AC49E04A4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080223084757.37CE0E0A9F@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I > will look into earlier emails to take up any other suggestion, if there. > > Parminder Pl also come in with anything anyone may have suggested and is not here. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements > > > Statements on main themes and IGF format stand as forwarded by Jeanette, I > have yet to include any changes that may have been suggested for these. > > Off hand I remember, Adam asking for including text on calling for > workshop > proposals immediately, Bill, for putting in stuff on 'assessment and way > forward session' and linking our IGF mandate workshop to it, and again > Adam > on removing sustainable communities, and netizens main these suggestions. > I > will look into earlier emails to take up any other suggestion, if there. > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 12:52 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statements > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 04:49:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:19:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223084757.37CE0E0A9F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080223094959.2E2D467814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Below is the statement on IGF format for Delhi.. With the following changes (done in a bit of hurry, so pl correct as needed. Will also correct language myself) Added "To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should be given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on main session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New Delhi. This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full potential of the IGF, that we all desire to do." Jeremy, as per Adam's suggestion, I am replacing reference to speed dialogue and instead putting this " We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the active participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend the IGF." In the section on participation, and then move on the issue of those who cant participate. And as per Izumi's email I have drafted and included some text " As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than half the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision of an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We welcome the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New Delhi." I have to confirm this Nitin part, but I remember he said so. I think it is imp that global CS points to the poverty aspect of India/ S Asia when gov may want IGF participants to focus on its IT part. Lastly, I want to recommend parts of the Swiss gov doc where it corresponds to suggestions made by us. Parminder The draft on IGF Delhi format as it stands. (pl point out if any suggestions are not included)* * * *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input for the format for IGF, Delhi* With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF. First of all, an overarching principle of IGF's work should be of dealing primarily with IG issues, and not generally We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in this area. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the global public policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting character. New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. It is therefore essential that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate. In fact the 'stock taking and the way forward' session at Delhi could then be used as a mid-term review of the IGF process, considering that the IGF process is supposed to be completely reviewed at the end of a five year period. *IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting* To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF, Rio. The process of selection of open workshops should, /inter alia/, involve the criteria of (1) Sponsor's readiness to structure the workshops as a space of open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and those with different points of views, to participate as panelists rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects. And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a particular subject. (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF's broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. *IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet * There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within Rio, from day one onwards. We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main session at Delhi. The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main sessions. (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must also be able to report back on their activities in such a main session. To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should be given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on main session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New Delhi. This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full potential of the IGF, that we all desire to see. *Participation at the IGF* We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the active participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend the IGF. It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and under represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential participants from developing and least developed countries. There is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face participation of currently under-represented groups. As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than half the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision of an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We welcome the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New Delhi. Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 04:56:49 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:56:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20080223084645.14B4F67825@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080223084645.14B4F67825@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: can we find people to read the statements in the morning (think best if MAG members sit and listen) and then we can make broader responses in the afternoon after talking at lunchtime? Adam >Bill (and others) > > >Yes, I agree that pre-consultation morning >meeting is difficult with all the time needed to >be spent at the security office. But lets do a >bit of Œcluster together¹ before the meeting, >while meeting other people we may be meeting. A >quick discussion about the day, and stuff. We >can have a longer meeting as you suggest at >lunch time. Parminder > > >From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:25 PM >To: Singh, Parminder; Governance >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva > >Parminder, > >I meant to ask about whether we are doing a >meeting and if locals should secure a room >during the lunch hour, but amidst all the >ontological debates forgot, sorry.   > >I wouldn¹t count on a 9am meeting working too >well.  Unless everyone commits to getting up >rather early to be first in line, most people >will be standing outside the security office >waiting to get badges, will show up late at >varying times, etc.  People could just cluster >outside the meeting room door when they arrive >for some brief coordination re: the consultation >itself, if needed.  But if we want to have a >broader discussion about caucus affairs that >won¹t work then. > >Probably too late now, but if there¹s critical >mass Philippe or I could at least inquire about >a lunchtime meeting room.  It is also often >possible to simply squat in one of the smaller >meeting rooms on the first floor since >governments don¹t do working lunches in these >parts, but if some overly rule-oriented guard >notices we might have to evacuate to the lounge >etc.  Or we could just grab a table at the back >of the cafeteria, usually possible.  Don¹t know >how many people are coming, whether that¹d work >logistically, acoustically... > >BTW on caucus interventions, it might be >sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not >me) read at least one of the three statements, >no?  Or do we want to look like CS is top down, >centralized, blah blah blah... > >Best, > >Bill > > >On 2/23/08 7:57 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to >Geneva for IGF consultations meet briefly before >the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any >suggestions for a meeting place.  Parminder   > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 23 04:53:04 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:23:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223094959.2E2D467814@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080223095307.AE59EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> We will have to change Delhi to Hyderabad everywhere. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements > > > > Below is the statement on IGF format for Delhi.. > > With the following changes (done in a bit of hurry, so pl correct as > needed. > Will also correct language myself) > > Added > > "To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should > be > given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on > main > session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with > inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New > Delhi. > This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full > potential of the IGF, that we all desire to do." > > Jeremy, as per Adam's suggestion, I am replacing reference to speed > dialogue > and instead putting this > > " We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the > active > participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend the IGF." > > In the section on participation, > > and then move on the issue of those who cant participate. And as per > Izumi's > email I have drafted and included some text > > " As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than > half > the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision > of > an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the > participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of > the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach > to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by > galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We > welcome > the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New > Delhi." > > I have to confirm this Nitin part, but I remember he said so. I think it > is > imp that global CS points to the poverty aspect of India/ S Asia when gov > may want IGF participants to focus on its IT part. > > > Lastly, I want to recommend parts of the Swiss gov doc where it > corresponds > to suggestions made by us. > > Parminder > > The draft on IGF Delhi format as it stands. (pl point out if any > suggestions > are not included)* > > * * > > *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input for the format for IGF, > Delhi* > > With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess how > well > IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make improvements as > necessary to the format and processes of IGF. > > First of all, an overarching principle of IGF's work should be of dealing > primarily with IG issues, and not generally > > We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to carry > out > can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing an open space > for > discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all > stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a closer interactions > between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each other'. > The > second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the category of > providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area > of > global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of > ideas, > possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional framework in > this area. > > The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these > purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and > IGF > is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where > anyone > can come and voice one's opinion and concerns. However, the requirements > for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the > global public policy arena - may need us to explore some structural > improvements for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town > hall meeting character. > > New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. It is > therefore > essential that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate. In > fact > the 'stock taking and the way forward' session at Delhi could then be used > as a mid-term review of the IGF process, considering that the IGF process > is > supposed to be completely reviewed at the end of a five year period. > > *IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting* > > To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are making > good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as many open > workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of the logistics. > In > fact, we should encourage connected events on the sidelines of the IGF as > well, some of which were held around IGF, Rio. > > The process of selection of open workshops should, /inter alia/, involve > the > criteria of > > (1) Sponsor's readiness to structure the workshops as a space of open > dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi stakeholder criteria > should be seen more in terms of the expressed willingness of the sponsors > to > invite different stakeholders, and those with different points of views, > to > participate as panelists rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. > The later criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, > especially those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively > monolithic structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some > subjects. > And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of > views, > rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather > a > panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a > particular > subject. > > (2) Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within IGF's > broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are global, and > have some relation to public policy arena. Specific overall thematic > emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated. > > *IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet * > > > > There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that the IGF > fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global public policy on > Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA mandate. The main sessions > should the focal spaces for fulfilling these sets of objectives. There was > a > general impression among those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that > the > main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see > attendance at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and > within > Rio, from day one onwards. > > > > We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific issues > concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more > broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally. > These specific issues should be framed, and prepared for, well in advance. > We are separately suggesting a couple of such specific issues that can be > dealt with by the main session at Delhi. > > > > The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by > > > > (1) Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and feeding > into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited number of these > thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge proposals for such > workshops in a manner that preserves diversities of geo-politics, special > interests and different viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to > increase > the effectiveness of the main sessions. > > > > (2) Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions. > > > > (3) Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these > sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should also > synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme, taking from the > discussions at the main sessions and the connected workshops. These > working > groups could consist of members of the MAG plus some other experts and > stakeholders. > > > > Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the > effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the formal > integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic coalition > pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session should be involved in > the preparations for the session. They must also be able to report back on > their activities in such a main session. > > > To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should be > given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on > main > session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with > inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New > Delhi. > This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full > potential of the IGF, that we all desire to see. > > *Participation at the IGF* > > We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the active > participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend the IGF. > > It is important to improve the participation of currently excluded and > under > represented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual > meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential > participants from developing and least developed countries. > > > There is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online > means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of online > participation cannot fill in for greater face to face participation of > currently under-represented groups. > > As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than half > the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision > of > an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the > participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of > the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach > to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by > galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We > welcome > the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New > Delhi. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:18 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 23 07:04:59 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:04:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva References: <20080223084645.14B4F67825@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A10@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good proposal. I will join the reading team. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Gesendet: Sa 23.02.2008 10:56 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva can we find people to read the statements in the morning (think best if MAG members sit and listen) and then we can make broader responses in the afternoon after talking at lunchtime? Adam >Bill (and others) > > >Yes, I agree that pre-consultation morning >meeting is difficult with all the time needed to >be spent at the security office. But lets do a >bit of OEcluster together¹ before the meeting, >while meeting other people we may be meeting. A >quick discussion about the day, and stuff. We >can have a longer meeting as you suggest at >lunch time. Parminder > > >From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:25 PM >To: Singh, Parminder; Governance >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC members meeting in Geneva > >Parminder, > >I meant to ask about whether we are doing a >meeting and if locals should secure a room >during the lunch hour, but amidst all the >ontological debates forgot, sorry. > >I wouldn¹t count on a 9am meeting working too >well. Unless everyone commits to getting up >rather early to be first in line, most people >will be standing outside the security office >waiting to get badges, will show up late at >varying times, etc. People could just cluster >outside the meeting room door when they arrive >for some brief coordination re: the consultation >itself, if needed. But if we want to have a >broader discussion about caucus affairs that >won¹t work then. > >Probably too late now, but if there¹s critical >mass Philippe or I could at least inquire about >a lunchtime meeting room. It is also often >possible to simply squat in one of the smaller >meeting rooms on the first floor since >governments don¹t do working lunches in these >parts, but if some overly rule-oriented guard >notices we might have to evacuate to the lounge >etc. Or we could just grab a table at the back >of the cafeteria, usually possible. Don¹t know >how many people are coming, whether that¹d work >logistically, acoustically... > >BTW on caucus interventions, it might be >sensible aesthetically to have someone else (not >me) read at least one of the three statements, >no? Or do we want to look like CS is top down, >centralized, blah blah blah... > >Best, > >Bill > > >On 2/23/08 7:57 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >Can all those from the IGC who are traveling to >Geneva for IGF consultations meet briefly before >the consultations start at 10. May be at 9. Any >suggestions for a meeting place. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sat Feb 23 08:56:23 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:56:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] karenb comments: IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223095307.AE59EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080223094959.2E2D467814@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080223095307.AE59EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080223135626.C175E2C7764@mail.gn.apc.org> dear all i haven't had time to do more than read through the threads in response to the statements, and read through what i think are last versions of statements. A file is attached with all 3 statements together (simply offered as i put it together for my own purposes), gathered together from the threads today.. i did a search and replace on (new) delhi and delhi (careful when you do this as you'll catch one legitimate new delhi in relation to the comment about nitin desai and the recent new delhi meeting) - and replaced with hyderabad APC won't be submitting written statements apart from the report and recommendations on access i've already posted here- but that statement does contains one recommendation that the caucus statement also advocates - that of working groups - and specifically, in relation to access. The swiss are proposing a working group on a development agenda for IG (which the caucus is supporting) - and in general, apc will support the modality of working groups, as part of a process, that supports thematic work in the IGF - as outlined in our statement at the end of the Rio IGF (extract below) In addition to the general proposal, we will try to provide more detail as to how WGs might work in practice, how they could be convened and operate - working with the access WG as a prototype 3. Convening of "IGF working groups" (full statement at : http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf) APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to specific institutions. These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for action from the individuals in the working group. These working groups have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see IGF working groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they should particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They will also have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report that dynamic coalitions do not have. Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on the following issues might be valuable: * Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance * Working group on business models for access * Working group on a development agenda for internet governance. The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event report has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that time. parminder - you asked about how to get comments in on some kind of 'code of participation in IG processes' - you're referring to the press release from APC, CoE and UNECE last year? >>>>The Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive >>>>Communications propose a code for public participation in Internet governance >>>> >>>>RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society >>>>organisations propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster >>>>participation, access to information and transparency in Internet >>>>governance at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de >>>>Janeiro on 12 November 2007. full statement at: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569 we are moving ahead with this.. and anriette will be able to update people in geneva.. but if this some thing the caucus would like to support in principle (and get involved in in practice between now and IGF Hyderabad) then maybe you can simply make a verbal intervention to support the proposal, or express interest in the proposal, at the appropriate time.. ===== in a verbal intervention, we will also comment on themes - supporting the themes of transparency and accountability and sustainable development and IG, amongst others, and comments on the reconstitution of the MAG, which wil largely echo and support the caucus statement on this (and also noted in our statement last year) - in fact, pretty ,much all of the proposals from our statement last year still stand.. a few brief comments on the caucus statements I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a main theme of sustainable development and internet governance? II: formats - no comments, largely support III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i thought i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement? karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 112128 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 08:58:43 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:58:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223082945.24BF7E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080223082945.24BF7E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Milton mentioned keeping the MAG as small as possible. Would it help to add a sentence before we say "We think 40 is a good number..." such as: The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be inefficient. I am still concerned Special Advisers can add to the number in a pretty uncontrolled way, but too late to be drafting additional text about that. Adam >The draft on reconstituting MAG stands as follows. > >Adam, I have removed stuff you recommended removing, including the para on >MAG assessing IGF's performance on fulfilling mandate, and slightly modified >the para before that. > >I have removed three paras from the opening part, and moved special advisors >and chairs part to the end, which the speaker may run over quickly if >constrained for time. > > >Parminder . > >(the draft of reconstituting MAG) > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of >multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring > >At the outset, of this statement on renewal of MAG, the civil Society IGC >appeals that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG >at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most >important aspect of the IGF. > >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making >the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of >transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that >MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG >discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open >to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the >closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. >By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings >of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed >manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of >discussions provided as appropriate. > >Membership of the MAG > >* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG >members should be rotated every year. > >* In the interest of transparency and >understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments >to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group >that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should >be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. > >* Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory >groups appointed in >2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation >and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >experiment in global governance. > >* We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards >should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > >* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate >processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it >is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of >them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder >group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of >civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final >selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should >be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the >self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the >minimum.  > >* When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >interest groups. > > > >Role and Structure of the MAG > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to >re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > >* One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF >meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. >What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of >the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making >processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF >is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to >fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > >* It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs >should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to >this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG >more effectively. > >* We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any >substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry >out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', >identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the >other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical >that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > >* MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts >of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year >ahead. We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would >also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for >discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > >* IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for >this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the >paragraph 80 of TA. > >Funding of IGF, and Participation > >*The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN >process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its >mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We have great respect and >appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it >has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat >should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively.  > >* In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of >people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual >meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > >(more text on participation of currently under-represented communities to be >added here, as per Izumi's email. Ill try that in a while) > >(Lastly on) Special Advisors and Chair > >* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for >their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as >mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. > >* We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of >the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host >country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would >be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF >meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and >responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be >too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi >meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already >taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the >post-Delhi phase. > >END >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 23 11:35:22 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:35:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF delhi format References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016296AB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A1B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton: Anyway, if a clueful MAG or IGF Secretariat was willing to challenge powerful organizations to enter into the spirit of the Forum it would not be difficult to nip in the bud any attempts to boycott. Let's say WIPO refuses to participate in a controversial panel about global IPR governance and the role of WIPO. They should get a call from the Secretariat who says, "hey, what's up with that? You should be on this panel, its about your issues." That scenario doesn't seem unrealistic to me. The Secretariat should have the knowledge and the cojones to do that. Long term it would increase respect for the IGF. Wolfgang: Milton is right. The majority of the workshops is one sided, domonated by the interests of the organizers. So far this is okay with me. But probably we should think about two doifferent categories of workshops: Catageory I would be organozed by the IGF Secretariat/MAG similar to the plenaries. In such an "official" workshop you can guaranetee a balance. Category II would be self-organized by proposers. Even in this case, proposers would have to fulfill some criteria, and one criteria should include the principle "give both sides" if it comes to a controversial issue. More work for the MAG. Which probably would lead to have working groups within the MAG itself. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 13:23:35 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:23:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223082945.24BF7E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080223082945.24BF7E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C064A7.8050802@wzb.eu> I am fine with the statement as it is now but have no problem with adding sentences such as the one suggested by Adam (quoted below) although I find it a bit vague. Did anybody here speak against limiting the number of special advisers? The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be inefficient. jeanette Parminder wrote: > The draft on reconstituting MAG stands as follows. > > Adam, I have removed stuff you recommended removing, including the para on > MAG assessing IGF's performance on fulfilling mandate, and slightly modified > the para before that. > > I have removed three paras from the opening part, and moved special advisors > and chairs part to the end, which the speaker may run over quickly if > constrained for time. > > > Parminder . > > (the draft of reconstituting MAG) > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of > multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring > > At the outset, of this statement on renewal of MAG, the civil Society IGC > appeals that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG > at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most > important aspect of the IGF. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making > the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of > transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that > MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since MAG > discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open > to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some > circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the > closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate. > By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings > of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed > manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of > discussions provided as appropriate. > > Membership of the MAG > > * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG > members should be rotated every year. > > * In the interest of transparency and > understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments > to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group > that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should > be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. > > * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory > groups appointed in > 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation > and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > > * We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > > * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it > is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of > them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder > group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of > civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final > selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should > be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the > self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the > minimum. > > * When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. > > > > Role and Structure of the MAG > > With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list > out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > * One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF > meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. > What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of > the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making > processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF > is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to > fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > > * It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These WGs > should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to > this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of MAG > more effectively. > > * We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry > out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', > identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the > other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical > that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > > * MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts > of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > ahead. We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General would > also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > * IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for > this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > paragraph 80 of TA. > > Funding of IGF, and Participation > > *The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We have great respect and > appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded it > has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat > should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. > > * In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of > people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual > meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > (more text on participation of currently under-represented communities to be > added here, as per Izumi's email. Ill try that in a while) > > (Lastly on) Special Advisors and Chair > > * The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. > > * We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of > the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host > country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would > be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF > meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and > responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be > too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi > meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already > taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the > post-Delhi phase. > > END >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 14:53:12 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:23:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080223195319.557D7E2538@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Milton mentioned keeping the MAG as small as > possible. Would it help to add a sentence before > we say "We think 40 is a good number..." such as: Yes, I have had this concern in mind that Milton had opposed the number 40. While I empathize with his reasons, a lot of the members thought 40 was right, and I don't think we can avoid making some comment on the size of the MAG in this statement. > The MAG should be large enough so that its > members bring the required balance of stakeholder > interests, diversity and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be inefficient. Also, since we are recommending WGs, and this could become one of the main rallying points for this consultations, it is difficult to have WGs in a very small MAG. But I can put in the above text that you suggest before the sentence "We think 40 is a good number..." > I am still concerned Special Advisers can add to > the number in a pretty uncontrolled way, but too > late to be drafting additional text about that. I agree with you on this. I can add something to this effect in the part on special advisors. What about saying - the number of special advisors should be kept within reasonable limits. I will try to put out the text for rough consensus today, but if I am not able to do it now, certainly by early morning GMT tommorow. That would still leave us with 48 hours to the consultations. In any case Karen's text is as good as final. Only some cleaning up, and some small language edits etc, may still be needed. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:29 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements > > Milton mentioned keeping the MAG as small as > possible. Would it help to add a sentence before > we say "We think 40 is a good number..." such as: > > The MAG should be large enough so that its > members bring the required balance of stakeholder > interests, diversity and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be inefficient. > > I am still concerned Special Advisers can add to > the number in a pretty uncontrolled way, but too > late to be drafting additional text about that. > > Adam > > > > >The draft on reconstituting MAG stands as follows. > > > >Adam, I have removed stuff you recommended removing, including the para > on > >MAG assessing IGF's performance on fulfilling mandate, and slightly > modified > >the para before that. > > > >I have removed three paras from the opening part, and moved special > advisors > >and chairs part to the end, which the speaker may run over quickly if > >constrained for time. > > > > > >Parminder . > > > >(the draft of reconstituting MAG) > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of > >multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring > > > >At the outset, of this statement on renewal of MAG, the civil Society IGC > >appeals that we all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" > MAG > >at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most > >important aspect of the IGF. > > > >MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making > >the IGF more effective and productive. We appreciate the new measures of > >transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that > >MAG should work through two elists -- one open and other closed. Since > MAG > >discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be > open > >to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some > >circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the > >closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as > appropriate. > >By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face > meetings > >of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a > closed > >manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of > >discussions provided as appropriate. > > > >Membership of the MAG > > > >* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG > >members should be rotated every year. > > > >* In the interest of transparency and > >understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making > appointments > >to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group > >that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG > should > >be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. > > > >* Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory > >groups appointed in > >2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation > >and a fair balance of members between all stakeholders assured. Fair > civil > >society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > >experiment in global governance. > > > >* We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > >administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards > >should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation > >should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > > > >* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > >processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that > it > >is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set > of > >them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder > >group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case > of > >civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the > final > >selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, > should > >be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the > >self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the > >minimum. > > > >* When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > >interest groups. > > > > > > > >Role and Structure of the MAG > > > >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to > >re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to > list > >out the functions that MAG is expected to play. > > > >* One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF > >meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. > >What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of > >the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making > >processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if > IGF > >is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to > >fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > > > >* It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These > WGs > >should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected > to > >this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of > MAG > >more effectively. > > > >* We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any > >substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to > carry > >out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', > >identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or > the > >other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical > >that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG. > > > >* MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > >mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts > >of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year > >ahead. We suggest this report, once adopted by the Secretary General > would > >also satisfy the requirements of para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare > for > >discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > > >* IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > >should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > for > >this purpose, possibly using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the > >paragraph 80 of TA. > > > >Funding of IGF, and Participation > > > >*The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN > >process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil > its > >mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We have great respect and > >appreciation for the work of the Secretariat, while severely under-funded > it > >has still been responsible for many of IGF's successes. The Secretariat > >should be provided with resources needed to perform its role > effectively. > > > >* In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of > >people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual > >meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > > >(more text on participation of currently under-represented communities to > be > >added here, as per Izumi's email. Ill try that in a while) > > > >(Lastly on) Special Advisors and Chair > > > >* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG and criteria for > >their selection should be clarified. Consideration for diversity as > >mentioned above must be maintained in the selection of Special Advisors. > > > >* We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature > of > >the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN SG. The host > >country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that > would > >be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF > >meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work > and > >responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may > be > >too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement for the New Delhi > >meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already > >taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the > >post-Delhi phase. > > > >END > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Feb 23 15:06:03 2008 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:06:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] web: AU judge on privacy: Computer code trumps the law Message-ID: <47C07CAB.3010703@gmail.com> http://www.news.com/Judge-on-privacy-Computer-code-trumps-the-law/2100-1029_3-6231713.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 15:18:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:48:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] karenb comments: IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223135626.C175E2C7764@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20080223201845.F2FC4E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Karen, Thanks a lot for putting together the draft statements. It is very helpful at a time I am not able to give a lot of attention to this task. Some quick responses to your queries. >I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a main theme of sustainable development and internet governance? There has been no discussion on it, so we at the moment have no formal position on it. >III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i thought i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement? It has been in earlier caucus statements, last year. I can add a line. Does anyone have any reservations to adding - The caucus supports the continuation of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the MAG. He has played a stellar role in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times. Or any alternative text.. Parminder _____ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] karenb comments: IGC statements dear all i haven't had time to do more than read through the threads in response to the statements, and read through what i think are last versions of statements. A file is attached with all 3 statements together (simply offered as i put it together for my own purposes), gathered together from the threads today.. i did a search and replace on (new) delhi and delhi (careful when you do this as you'll catch one legitimate new delhi in relation to the comment about nitin desai and the recent new delhi meeting) - and replaced with hyderabad APC won't be submitting written statements apart from the report and recommendations on access i've already posted here- but that statement does contains one recommendation that the caucus statement also advocates - that of working groups - and specifically, in relation to access. The swiss are proposing a working group on a development agenda for IG (which the caucus is supporting) - and in general, apc will support the modality of working groups, as part of a process, that supports thematic work in the IGF - as outlined in our statement at the end of the Rio IGF (extract below) In addition to the general proposal, we will try to provide more detail as to how WGs might work in practice, how they could be convened and operate - working with the access WG as a prototype 3. Convening of IGF working groups (full statement at : http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf) APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to specific institutions. These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for action from the individuals in the working group. These working groups have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see IGF working groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they should particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They will also have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report that dynamic coalitions do not have. Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on the following issues might be valuable: 1. Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance 2. Working group on business models for access 3. Working group on a development agenda for internet governance. The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event report has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that time. parminder - you asked about how to get comments in on some kind of 'code of participation in IG processes' - you're referring to the press release from APC, CoE and UNECE last year? The Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications propose a code for public participation in Internet governance RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society organisations propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro on 12 November 2007. full statement at: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569 we are moving ahead with this.. and anriette will be able to update people in geneva.. but if this some thing the caucus would like to support in principle (and get involved in in practice between now and IGF Hyderabad) then maybe you can simply make a verbal intervention to support the proposal, or express interest in the proposal, at the appropriate time.. ===== in a verbal intervention, we will also comment on themes - supporting the themes of transparency and accountability and sustainable development and IG, amongst others, and comments on the reconstitution of the MAG, which wil largely echo and support the caucus statement on this (and also noted in our statement last year) - in fact, pretty ,much all of the proposals from our statement last year still stand.. a few brief comments on the caucus statements I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a main theme of sustainable development and internet governance? II: formats - no comments, largely support III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i thought i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement? karen -------------- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 23 15:19:40 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:19:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statements Message-ID: Hi, Checking back in from JFK after lecturing in Zurich; teaching obligations precluded me sticking around and joining you in Geneva. So as an fyi for my cs pals, gasp, I'm also working to try to get a highly visible CEO to Hyderabad, for participation in a plenary on something along the lines but not quite 'IG and sustainable communities.' To not drive the list nuts, whatever text I come up with, I will just send in per Adam's suggestion straight to igf. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 02/23/08 2:22 AM >>> At 12:20 PM +0530 2/23/08, Parminder wrote: >We have about 12 hours to go to try and start the consensus process >of 48 hours. > >I see not much interest in main session themes. Ok, I will propose >them anyway as they stand, but comments are welcome in the next 12 >hours. Thanks. Parminder. suggest dropping the text on *3. "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities"* and *6. Netizens - on the Internet as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues.* as neither has been updated or really discussed (I don't know what we getting ourselves into with the "Internet Governance for Sustainable Communities", and not understanding it can't really support it.) People can always send in their own comments: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 15:35:31 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:35:31 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC statements themes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4d2a01c8765b$a9d46670$8b00a8c0@IAN> >From Lee, IISD and Swiss we seem to have similar suggestions as regards sustainable communities, sustainable development and climate change and sustainability (all with some sort of relationship sometimes dubious to internet governance). I suggest we support the IISD proposal on sustainable development and internet governance as the overarching theme, and ask that it be expanded if necessary to include sustainable cities and communities, and climate change and sustainability as they relate to the Internet. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 18:39 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Feb 23 15:44:51 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:44:51 +1100 Subject: [governance] web: AU judge on privacy: Computer code trumps the law In-Reply-To: <47C07CAB.3010703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4d3701c8765c$f721b7b0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Justice Kirby's main point is very interesting - that Google and Facebook etc have effectively overwritten the long standing privacy principle that personal information should only be used for the purpose for which it was originally provided. That will in time change the legal landscape, not necessarily for the better. Thanks for the link! -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com] Sent: 24 February 2008 07:06 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] web: AU judge on privacy: Computer code trumps the law http://www.news.com/Judge-on-privacy-Computer-code-trumps-the-law/2100-1029_ 3-6231713.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 18:39 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 18:39 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 16:59:06 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] web: AU judge on privacy: Computer code trumps the law In-Reply-To: <4d3701c8765c$f721b7b0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <47C07CAB.3010703@gmail.com> <4d3701c8765c$f721b7b0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <45ed74050802231359w3da29c21q3a306f2d0679e61a@mail.gmail.com> Yes thanks indeed for this link. A comment from this e-desk: here, I have hope, - that is trust - that younger judges now coming onto the Bench will be much more savvy than those laying down computer law in the past decades, often by judges who seldom or never saw computers or used computing let alone networks. Since overcoming precedent - *stare decisis* - can take a long time, more likely cases will be "distinguished" from earlier decisions, ostensibly on the facts or the law (tougher, usually).. Those are general statements, above. Specifically, it's a good thing that a judge does see a mismatch between e.g. Internet and older modes of communication; the latter much easier to reign-in when there are problems (short of CyberSpread).. In the 1990's and someone else may have done better, but I did poorly trying to convince judges that even though but a fraction of a 'nano' away but leached from elsewhere earthocentrically , *CyberLbel* effected people universally and jurisdiction should 'attach' (courts can hear cases because they see themselves as having jurisdiction). That was the U.S. though, and it happens Britain and I believe - check me - Australia were and by report maybe still are willing to see points of views of folks on either side of the :"V" ("versus") defendants and plaintiffs both. A comment, interested in all views; and with continuing best wishes to all, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. *Respectful Interfaces* . On 2/23/08, Ian Peter wrote: > > Justice Kirby's main point is very interesting - that Google and Facebook > etc have effectively overwritten the long standing privacy principle that > personal information should only be used for the purpose for which it was > originally provided. > > That will in time change the legal landscape, not necessarily for the > better. Thanks for the link! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com] > Sent: 24 February 2008 07:06 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] web: AU judge on privacy: Computer code trumps the > law > > > > > http://www.news.com/Judge-on-privacy-Computer-code-trumps-the-law/2100-1029_ > 3-6231713.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: > 22/02/2008 > 18:39 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: > 22/02/2008 > 18:39 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Feb 24 02:34:26 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:04:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080223195319.557D7E2538@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Everyone Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in the process of calling a possible rough consensus. When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be made on the behalf of the group. We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work being done. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48870 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 30057 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 76800 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 24 02:37:44 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:07:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements Message-ID: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: IGC statements > > > Hi Everyone > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should > be made on the behalf of the group. > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > work being done. > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48870 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 30057 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 76800 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 24 02:57:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:27:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080224075730.8985FA6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> A small addition. We will add in the statement on the MAG, that "The caucus supports the continuation of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times." We have said such a thing in our 2007 statements. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements > Importance: High > > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > Subject: IGC statements > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's > suggestions) > > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement > should > > be made on the behalf of the group. > > > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > > work being done. > > > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Feb 24 03:34:37 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:34:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, First of all, congratulations to you on pulling this together, the effort is much appreciated. Like probably everyone else I see substantive points here or there on which I wish we said x instead of y or also touched on z. Also, I see now a certain amount of redundancy between the first two statements, which I argued sometime ago could be merged. And you didn't take on board in the DA main session proposal the mention of the Brazilian support. But whatever, overall it's fine and more important to have IGC statements than to quibble. So I'm a yes. A procedural question. There are a number of places where small bits of copy editing purely to clean up language (not substantive) might be advisable. At a very minimum, you'd need to fix the last statement, where line breaks resulted in excess bullet points within sentences. I seem to recall that in previous cases we did this and nobody had issues with it, and it's consistent with the charter. Assuming the statements are adopted, perhaps we could do this before they're printed for distribution (you are bringing copies, yes?). Best, Bill On 2/24/08 8:37 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> Subject: IGC statements >> >> >> Hi Everyone >> >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >> be made on the behalf of the group. >> >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> work being done. >> >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Feb 24 03:39:14 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:39:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080224083914.GA27382@hserus.net> William Drake [24/02/08 09:34 +0100]: >Parminder, > >First of all, congratulations to you on pulling this together, the effort is >much appreciated. > Yes from me, with similar caveats that Bill raised here. Very rough consensus if at all but we must have some, at any rate. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 24 04:18:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:18:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <51a501c876c6$391663f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Yes from me, and thanks for a HUGE effort. Sorry I cant be in Geneva Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 24 February 2008 18:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements Importance: High Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: IGC statements > > > Hi Everyone > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should > be made on the behalf of the group. > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > work being done. > > 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 18:39 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 18:39 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Feb 24 04:41:48 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Yes from me. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 24 05:44:24 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:14:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080224104430.428D167818@smtp1.electricembers.net> At a very minimum, you'd need to fix the last statement, where > line breaks resulted in excess bullet points within sentences. I seem to > recall that in previous cases we did this and nobody had issues with it, > and > it's consistent with the charter. The statement cannot change in any substantive manner that could have the any possibility of controversy at all. But language edits, cleaning up etc will be done, and such inputs are fine. And you didn't take on board in the > DA > main session proposal the mention of the Brazilian support. That's a factual statement. Can still go in. . Assuming the statements are adopted, > perhaps we could do this before they're printed for distribution (you are > bringing copies, yes?). I left Bangalore a few days back and am traveling. So I wont be able to print. I am exploring other options for print outs but not sure. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:05 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements > Importance: High > > Parminder, > > First of all, congratulations to you on pulling this together, the effort > is > much appreciated. > > Like probably everyone else I see substantive points here or there on > which > I wish we said x instead of y or also touched on z. Also, I see now a > certain amount of redundancy between the first two statements, which I > argued sometime ago could be merged. And you didn't take on board in the > DA > main session proposal the mention of the Brazilian support. But whatever, > overall it's fine and more important to have IGC statements than to > quibble. > So I'm a yes. > > A procedural question. There are a number of places where small bits of > copy editing purely to clean up language (not substantive) might be > advisable. At a very minimum, you'd need to fix the last statement, where > line breaks resulted in excess bullet points within sentences. I seem to > recall that in previous cases we did this and nobody had issues with it, > and > it's consistent with the charter. Assuming the statements are adopted, > perhaps we could do this before they're printed for distribution (you are > bringing copies, yes?). > > Best, > > Bill > > On 2/24/08 8:37 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > >> Subject: IGC statements > >> > >> > >> Hi Everyone > >> > >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > >> > >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. > Added > >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's > suggestions) > >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > >> > >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps > in > >> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > >> > >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > >> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > >> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement > should > >> be made on the behalf of the group. > >> > >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > >> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > >> work being done. > >> > >> 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 raquelgatto at uol.com.br Sun Feb 24 08:49:57 2008 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:49:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4E49D98BB9E04F16A5D2F01779574472@Raquelnote> yes for me! and thank you for the great work! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parminder" To: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:37 AM Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> Subject: IGC statements >> >> >> Hi Everyone >> >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's >> suggestions) >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >> be made on the behalf of the group. >> >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> work being done. >> >> 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Sun Feb 24 09:30:05 2008 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:30:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C17F6D.5080701@umontreal.ca> Yes. Great job pulling this together Parminder. Hope everyone is well. -JS --------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------- Parminder wrote: > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> Subject: IGC statements >> >> >> Hi Everyone >> >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >> be made on the behalf of the group. >> >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> work being done. >> >> 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 wcurrie at apc.org Sun Feb 24 03:36:56 2008 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:36:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C12CA8.4090400@apc.org> Yes from me, good work, Parminder! Willie Parminder wrote: > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> Subject: IGC statements >> >> >> Hi Everyone >> >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >> be made on the behalf of the group. >> >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> work being done. >> >> 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 24 10:53:22 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:53:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <47C17F6D.5080701@umontreal.ca> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47C17F6D.5080701@umontreal.ca> Message-ID: <47C192F2.1040608@wzb.eu> I support the statements as well and want to thank Parminder for his patience and hard work. jeanette Jeremy Shtern wrote: > Yes. > > Great job pulling this together Parminder. > > Hope everyone is well. > > -JS > > --------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Parminder wrote: >> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>> Subject: IGC statements >>> >>> >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >>> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >>> >>> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >>> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >>> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) >>> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >>> >>> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >>> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >>> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >>> >>> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >>> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >>> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >>> be made on the behalf of the group. >>> >>> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >>> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >>> work being done. >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 24 11:39:59 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:39:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C19DDF.40703@rits.org.br> Way to go, Parm! I vote Yes, following the vote and endorsing the suggestions of Bill Drake. frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi Everyone > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in the > process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly the > statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you accept > that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be made > on the behalf of the group. > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate your > vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work being > done. > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 24 11:55:13 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:55:13 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47C17F6D.5080701@umontreal.ca> <47C192F2.1040608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A42@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> First of all thanks to Parminder. Great work and delivered just intime :-)))). My clear vote is YES. However, here are some late comments to the texts: Statement 1: If you refer to session theme 3 "Development" I would link this theme to the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). As we know both WSIS and MDG objectives are aimed at 2015. We know also that so far there is only little linkage between the (New York driven) MDG and the (Geneva driven) WSIS/IGF process. It would make sense to add half a sentence saying that such an IGF theme would also contribute to the MDG process. Statement 2: You say, and this is true, that the Tunis Agenda looks for the IGF only to 2010 and a reviw should take place in 2010. I think we should not wait with an evaluation until 2010. We should propose to start with the evaluation already here and now to make sure that there is no "sudden whole" in the process between 2010 and 2011. Statement 2/3: I would also add that we have still the position that the IGF is not a negotiation body and should not adopt formal policy recommendations but we are in favour of a certain more concrete visible outcome from the IGF. The IGF should not adopt "recommendations" but send clear "messages" to the relevant institutions and organisations which have a decision making capacity. The proposed "Annual Report" could be seen as playing such a role of sending "messages". Should we say something that we are against an "UN style bureau" (as proposed by some governments, in particular Russia) which would end up with an intergovernmental body? Once again thanks for the great work. If it comes to the showdown and to serious business the IGC is still alive and can produce relevant and unique input. Great. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: So 24.02.2008 16:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Betreff: Re: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements I support the statements as well and want to thank Parminder for his patience and hard work. jeanette Jeremy Shtern wrote: > Yes. > > Great job pulling this together Parminder. > > Hope everyone is well. > > -JS > > --------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Parminder wrote: >> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>> Subject: IGC statements >>> >>> >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >>> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >>> >>> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >>> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >>> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) >>> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >>> >>> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >>> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >>> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >>> >>> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >>> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >>> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should >>> be made on the behalf of the group. >>> >>> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >>> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >>> work being done. >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Feb 24 21:43:04 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:43:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A42@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080224073756.76AB9A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <47C17F6D.5080701@umontreal.ca> <47C192F2.1040608@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A42@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder - it might be too late by now, but nontherless. izumi @ Taipei 2008/2/25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang : > First of all thanks to Parminder. Great work and delivered just intime :-)))). My clear vote is YES. > > However, here are some late comments to the texts: > > Statement 1: If you refer to session theme 3 "Development" I would link this theme to the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). As we know both WSIS and MDG objectives are aimed at 2015. We know also that so far there is only little linkage between the (New York driven) MDG and the (Geneva driven) WSIS/IGF process. It would make sense to add half a sentence saying that such an IGF theme would also contribute to the MDG process. > > Statement 2: You say, and this is true, that the Tunis Agenda looks for the IGF only to 2010 and a reviw should take place in 2010. I think we should not wait with an evaluation until 2010. We should propose to start with the evaluation already here and now to make sure that there is no "sudden whole" in the process between 2010 and 2011. > > Statement 2/3: I would also add that we have still the position that the IGF is not a negotiation body and should not adopt formal policy recommendations but we are in favour of a certain more concrete visible outcome from the IGF. The IGF should not adopt "recommendations" but send clear "messages" to the relevant institutions and organisations which have a decision making capacity. The proposed "Annual Report" could be seen as playing such a role of sending "messages". Should we say something that we are against an "UN style bureau" (as proposed by some governments, in particular Russia) which would end up with an intergovernmental body? > > Once again thanks for the great work. If it comes to the showdown and to serious business the IGC is still alive and can produce relevant and unique input. Great. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Gesendet: So 24.02.2008 16:53 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Betreff: Re: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements > > > > > I support the statements as well and want to thank Parminder for his > patience and hard work. > jeanette > > Jeremy Shtern wrote: > > Yes. > > > > Great job pulling this together Parminder. > > > > Hope everyone is well. > > > > -JS > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Parminder wrote: > >> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > >>> Subject: IGC statements > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Everyone > >>> > >>> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > >>> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > >>> > >>> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > >>> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > >>> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > >>> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > >>> > >>> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > >>> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > >>> the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > >>> > >>> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > >>> the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > >>> accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should > >>> be made on the behalf of the group. > >>> > >>> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > >>> your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > >>> work being done. > >>> > >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 25 00:47:28 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:47:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF meeting - Bangalore? In-Reply-To: a5509d940802221545w4154d303v142ef466dfbaf5b5@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Izumi , Why was Hyderabad (and Delhi) chosen for the IGF meeting, over Bangalore? Bangalore is India’s Silicon–Valley equivalent. What was the rational? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Mon Feb 25 01:06:10 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:06:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting - Bangalore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, I have no idea - don's ask me, I have not involvement whatsoever. please ask the Indian government ;-). Thanks, izumi 2008/2/25, yehudakatz at mailinator.com : > Izumi , > > Why was Hyderabad (and Delhi) chosen for the IGF meeting, over Bangalore? > Bangalore is India's Silicon–Valley equivalent. > What was the rational? > __ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Feb 25 02:15:34 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:15:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF meeting - Bangalore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080225071534.GA11367@hserus.net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com [24/02/08 21:47 -0800]: >Why was Hyderabad (and Delhi) chosen for the IGF meeting, over Bangalore? >Bangalore is Indias Silicon Valley equivalent. And it is an overpriced city, thanks to that. With even more crowded roads and infrastructure. I am sure you would prefer paying $350..500 for your hotel room instead of $200++, besides the other costs (f&b, banquet etc) for doing the meeting there? And you'd need a venue of suitable size, to start with. Most of the venues in bangalore are five star hotels and such, may not fit all of IGF into them ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 25 04:26:52 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:56:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080225092707.79CF06782D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Thanks vivek > -----Original Message----- > From: Vivek Vaidyanathan [mailto:vivek at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:52 PM > To: 'Guru'; 'Parminder' > Subject: FW: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts > > From adam peake > > Vivek Uma Vaidyanathan > IT for Change (ITfC) > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel:(+91 80) 26654134, 26536890 > Fax:(+91 80) 41461055 > Mob: +91 9980084835 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts > > A new batch of MAG mailing list extracts available, see > and the digest of discussions section. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 25 04:40:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:10:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts In-Reply-To: <20080225092707.79CF06782D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080225094104.9B36DE04AE@smtp3.electricembers.net> PLEASE IGNORE THE EARLIER MESSAGE with this subject line I am so sorry for these mis-directed emails from internal itfc communication. Promise wont happen again :). I am very very apologetic. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:57 PM > To: 'Vivek Vaidyanathan' > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts > > > Thanks vivek > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vivek Vaidyanathan [mailto:vivek at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:52 PM > > To: 'Guru'; 'Parminder' > > Subject: FW: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts > > > > From adam peake > > > > Vivek Uma Vaidyanathan > > IT for Change (ITfC) > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel:(+91 80) 26654134, 26536890 > > Fax:(+91 80) 41461055 > > Mob: +91 9980084835 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:07 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] 3rd batch of MAG list extracts > > > > A new batch of MAG mailing list extracts available, see > > and the digest of discussions section. > > > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Feb 25 05:41:52 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:41:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224075730.8985FA6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080224075730.8985FA6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Pretty much the same thoughts as Bill. But you've done a a great job and the statements have my support. Thanks for all your work. Adam >A small addition. > >We will add in the statement on the MAG, that > > >"The caucus supports the continuation of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the >MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG >and the IGF through difficult formative times." > >We have said such a thing in our 2007 statements. > >Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:08 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> > Subject: IGC statements >> > >> > >> > Hi Everyone >> > >> > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> > >> > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's >> suggestions) >> > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> > >> > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> > >> > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement >> should >> > be made on the behalf of the group. >> > >> > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> > work being done. >> > >> > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 25 08:49:28 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:49:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements Message-ID: Yes, congrats Parminder. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 02/25/08 5:41 AM >>> Parminder, Pretty much the same thoughts as Bill. But you've done a a great job and the statements have my support. Thanks for all your work. Adam >A small addition. > >We will add in the statement on the MAG, that > > >"The caucus supports the continuation of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the >MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG >and the IGF through difficult formative times." > >We have said such a thing in our 2007 statements. > >Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:08 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM >> > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> > Subject: IGC statements >> > >> > >> > Hi Everyone >> > >> > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> > >> > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added >> > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's >> suggestions) >> > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> > >> > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in >> > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> > >> > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly >> > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you >> > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement >> should >> > be made on the behalf of the group. >> > >> > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate >> > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the >> > work being done. >> > >> > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 25 08:58:42 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:58:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080223195319.557D7E2538@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016297F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hello, I have finally gotten a chance to review the statement. My vote is YES, understanding that we have a binary option here. However, I note an error - not a wording problem or a shade of meaning I don't like, but an outright, puzzling error -- in the language on net neutrality (NN). The language in question says that the "challenges [of NN] are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers." This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it if you can. The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend vertical control to content and applications. So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications. And by the way, "content and applications" are not separate "layers;" the application layer is a term that has meaning in the OSI framework; content is something that applications act on. In discussing NN, I suggest that we will do ourselves a favor if we abandon completely the ersatz layering terminology that seems to have evolved as a bastardized version of the OSI model. That's my pedantic 2cents for today. ;-) MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC statements > > > Hi Everyone > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > the > process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > the > statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you accept > that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be made > on the behalf of the group. > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > your > vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work > being > done. > > 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 Mon Feb 25 12:39:10 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:39:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] email addresses for remote comments, IGF consultation February 26 Message-ID: Hi, two email addresses have been set up for comments for tomorrow's IGF consultation. For questions in English: 26feb_english at intgovforum.info For questions in French: 26feb_francais at intgovforum.info Will do our best to make sure any comments are read (asked) during the meeting. The meeting will be held 10:00 - 13:00 and 15:00 - 18:00 hours (UTC/GMT +1 hour). Best, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Mon Feb 25 15:00:33 2008 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:00:33 -0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus Call - IGC statements Message-ID: <200802252000.UAA04703@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear Parminder: Yes from me and Thank you Parminder for your wonderful effort in preparing the IGC statment. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by "Parminder" on Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:07:44 +0530. --- Original Message --- > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > Subject: IGC statements > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should > > be made on the behalf of the group. > > > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > > work being done. > > > > 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 > > > Changing the subject line, and marking as priority. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:04 PM > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > Subject: IGC statements > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. Added > > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's suggestions) > > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps in > > the process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be exactly > > the statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > > accept that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should > > be made on the behalf of the group. > > > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl indicate > > your vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the > > work being done. > > > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 26 01:36:01 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:06:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <200802252000.UAA04703@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <20080226063610.F05F06782C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Thanks everyone for all the contributions and good work, and support. The enclosed three statements will be read on the behalf of the caucus by caucus members in the open consultations today. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC - Main themes for IGF Hyd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 14628 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC - Format of IGF Hyd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19036 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC - MAG Rotation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27546 bytes Desc: not available URL: From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Feb 26 02:16:24 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:16:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <20080226063610.F05F06782C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: P, For DA, it's the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, not the Brazilian government per se. Should be corrected in the read out and before you give the secretariat the text for posting. I guess there's no time for the copy editing for language. Thanks though for cleaning up the MAG statement bullet points. See you in 90 minutes. Bill On 2/26/08 7:36 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for all the contributions and good work, and support. The > enclosed three statements will be read on the behalf of the caucus by caucus > members in the open consultations today. 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Feb 26 04:31:33 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:31:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statements In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016297F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080223195319.557D7E2538@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080224073452.92B7EE0841@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016297F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47C3DC75.2060408@rits.org.br> May be... and may be not. The fact is that one of the clearest violations of net neutrality by connectivity providers is in arbitrarily blocking logical ports or affecting traffic of packets with certain characteristics -- all of this in the same layer, whatever the terminology you use to separate the levels of service. So there are issues with layers and cross-cutting issues as well. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hello, I have finally gotten a chance to review the statement. My vote > is YES, understanding that we have a binary option here. > > However, I note an error - not a wording problem or a shade of meaning I > don't like, but an outright, puzzling error -- in the language on net > neutrality (NN). The language in question says that the "challenges [of > NN] are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in > the content and application layers." > > This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it > if you can. > > The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend > vertical control to content and applications. > > So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one > layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from > one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications. > > And by the way, "content and applications" are not separate "layers;" > the application layer is a term that has meaning in the OSI framework; > content is something that applications act on. In discussing NN, I > suggest that we will do ourselves a favor if we abandon completely the > ersatz layering terminology that seems to have evolved as a bastardized > version of the OSI model. That's my pedantic 2cents for today. ;-) > > MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] IGC statements >> >> >> Hi Everyone >> >> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open >> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. >> >> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. > Added >> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as >> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's > suggestions) >> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. >> >> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if >> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps > in >> the >> process of calling a possible rough consensus. >> >> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be > exactly >> the >> statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > accept >> that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be > made >> on the behalf of the group. >> >> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl > indicate >> your >> vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work >> being >> done. >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Feb 26 05:13:23 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:13:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII In-Reply-To: <200802221701.m1MH1WdB010255@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200802261013.m1QADNSf011613@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to confirm the briefing meeting with the CTSD Secretariat taking place today between 2.00 pm and 3.00 pm. The venue will be in Room XXVII (first floor). [The room is sometimes hard to find: it is located in the same floor as the Serpentine bar. Take the corridor at the left of room XXVI, and then you’ll find room XVII.] Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : vendredi 22 février 2008 18:01 À : wsis at ngocongo.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing for CS with secretariat of the CSTD - 26 Feb. 2008 Dear all, This is to inform you that the CSTD Secretariat will arrange some time for a briefing with Civil Society on the preparations towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD, 26-30 May 2008). This briefing will take place, such as last year, during the lunchtime period of the IGF Preparatory meeting. Date: 26 February 2008 Time: 14:00-15:00 Venue: UN Palais des Nations, room number to be confirmed More information shortly. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : vendredi 15 février 2008 18:42 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD(26-30 May 2008) Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members’ listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: “Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment” - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: “Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research” More information coming soon. 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 -------------- 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 tvetter at iisd.ca Tue Feb 26 10:09:22 2008 From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:09:22 -0600 Subject: [governance] Renesys Blog Pakistan hijacks YouTube In-Reply-To: <200802252000.UAA04703@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200802252000.UAA04703@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <9A6DE18C833B7D49A61A0D083630A63901BE367A50@electron.iisd.ca> I had not seen any mention of this on the list and thought it might be of interest. http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/02/pakistan_hijacks_youtube_1.shtml Tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 26 10:16:25 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:16:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote access Message-ID: Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make sure it doesn't happen again. 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 26 10:28:40 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:28:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just joined 30 minutes or so ago, but gave up the video immediately, just listening audio only. It stops every now and then. When I can hear well, it goes on for say 5 or 10 minutes, then no audio for 30 sec, or 3 min - very hard to make sense of what is going on. Even when we can hear, often, the voice level goes up and down. In short, it is not practically usable, quite worse than some of tthe previous sessions I listened in. izumi 2008/2/27, Adam Peake : > Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. > Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make > sure it doesn't happen again. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 26 10:29:32 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:29:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And I hope (if not done yet), this remote participation quality problem be communicated to the Chair/people there, without blaming anyone. izumi 2008/2/27, Izumi AIZU : > I just joined 30 minutes or so ago, but gave up the video immediately, > just listening audio only. It stops every now and then. When I can > hear well, it goes on for say 5 or 10 minutes, then no audio for 30 > sec, or 3 min - very hard to make sense of what is going on. Even when > we can hear, often, the voice level goes up and down. In short, it is > not practically usable, quite worse than some of tthe previous > sessions I listened in. > > izumi > > 2008/2/27, Adam Peake : > > > Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. > > Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make > > sure it doesn't happen again. > > > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Feb 26 10:29:48 2008 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:29:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] remote access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, I turns out that there is a pretty good discussion on the chat, some of which I guess you have seen. Seems there have been problems with the network in Italy, perhaps a DDoS there. This afternoon (Geneva time anyway) bandwidth across the mountain to Torino dropped apparently to about 20 percent of the earlier. Those seem to be the best guesses to the moment. David At 12:16 AM +0900 2/27/08, Adam Peake wrote: >Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make sure it doesn't happen again. > >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 tvetter at iisd.ca Tue Feb 26 10:24:42 2008 From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:24:42 -0600 Subject: [governance] remote access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A6DE18C833B7D49A61A0D083630A63901BE367A73@electron.iisd.ca> Several attempts to connect earlier this morning failed outright. I am finally connected now however the stream is cutting out very frequently despite my broadband connection. Tony -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: February 26, 2008 10:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] remote access Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make sure it doesn't happen again. 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Feb 26 10:31:05 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:31:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] remote access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C430B9.10206@rits.org.br> The Internet in the room is working fine, so it is probably a problem with the streaming system. --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Seems remote access for the consultation is again not working well. > Would be good to hear what the problems have been, we can try to make > sure it doesn't happen again. > > 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 narten at us.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 12:00:03 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:00:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. > > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know > exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). One of the oft-repeated myths that seems to continue making the rounds is that IPv6 is about "transition" and that it is necessary to move away from IPv4 ASAP. Transition is a poor term, it turns out, because people associate the term transition with "must stop using IPv4" and that raises all sorts of alarm bells (and rightly so). It has been an assumption from the very beginning that there would be a very long coexistance period where IPv4 and IPv6 would both be in use. Many years. Decades more likely. This is not new thinking. It is not some recent realization that wasn't thought about from the beginning. (Though it is true that people have argued forever just how long a coexistance period would be.) I can imagine data centers and other parts of an enterprise effectively NEVER turning off IPv4. Why should they? It would only make sense to turn off IPv4 if it is no longer working or necessary. Think about legacy apps and cobol. They still exist. :-) You don't change things that are working unless you have a compelling reason to. The same will be the case with IPv4 deployments. > this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to > connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with > all that means about end to end reachability. The reality is that we don't have that today with IPv4. We have a world in which some parts of the internet reach some other parts of the world, that is, where the set of destinations I can reach may be very different than the set of destinations you can reach. This has to do with routing and how the routing infrastructure actually works as a business (e.g., due to policy considerations, there may be no route to me (or you) in some parts of the Internet). It also has to do with the widespread use of NATs/Firewalls, where many machines do not have direct connectivity to other machines. So, I don't think its entirely useful to talk about "a single global Internet" except at a very high level. Having IPv6 and IPv4 coexist will add strains to this (e.g., one particular IPv4 device might not be able to communicate with another particular IPv6 device). But the reasons for this will be varied and may be just fine. E.g., consider email. Email works today because mail is relayed from one part of the Internet to another, allowing sites that are not really directly connected to communicate. This sort of thing will also work for IPv4/IPv6. E.g., an IPv6-only site can relay mail to gateway that does dual stack, which in turns relays to IPv4 destinations. This is already done today, and will surely also happen in an IPv4/IPv6 world. My point here is that having IPv4 and IPv6 does add some complications to the ideal of a single global internet, but it's not a black and white kind of thing. We don't even have such an internet today (if one looks closely), though most people don't notice. And when you think of IPv6 deployment, think "coexistance". IPv4 will not go away anytime soon. Or even within our lifetimes, most likely. That is perfectly OK. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 26 12:00:43 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:00:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] morning transcript available Message-ID: Transcript of this morning's consultation is now available I expect the afternoon session will be up soon, perhaps tomorrow morning Geneva time. 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 narten at us.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 12:09:23 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:09:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <47BF3B04.50000@cavebear.com> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <47BF3B04.50000@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200802261709.m1QH9OMP012512@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Karl Auerbach writes: > I remember when I was at Sun in the early 1990's when the idea of IPv6 > was born. > And even then people were saying - "hey, the real problem is not > addresses but, rather, routing." Both are problems. Routing is a problem for ISPs (and ultimately for end users, because they care about multihomining and provider independence, but end users do not see this pain directly for the most part). ISPs complain about IPv6 because it does not help them with *their* problem (route scaling), and they don't see any benefit from IPv6. Lack of globally unique addresses is a big problem for end sites and users and applications writers. But it is not really a problem for ISPs, which is why they view IPv6 differently. > IPv6 doesn't help routing at all, in fact, because it doesn't share > with IPv4, it adds an additional burden without alleviating the > existing burden. That is true at one level, but I think somewhat overblown too. One of the myths that gets thrown out is that IPv6 makes the route scaling problem WORSE because it has so many more addresses. More addresses means potentially more routes. But this is a strawman of sorts. The real issue is growth (which presumably everyone wants to encourage). The exact same route scaling problems already exist with IPv4, except that there are fewer total addresses possible, effectively limiting growth. That said, it turns out that exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool will almost certainly further strain the routing system (independent of IPv6). What is necessary to keep the routing infrastructure intact is massive aggregation. Aggregation means having route prefixes in the routing table that are as short as possible, so that each individual route entry covers as many addresses as possible. (The more addresses covered, the fewer total prefixes that are needed to be able to provide connectivity to ALL destinations.) But as the free pool exhausts, and people make more efficient use of IPv4 space, they will almost certainly try to route increasingly longer prefixes (i.e, those covering fewer addresses). As an example, suppose someone has a /16 (class B) address, which currently takes up one entry in the global routing system. As addresses become scarce, there will be a temptation to divide that block up into smaller pieces and sell the individual smaller pieces to those that need them (or are willing to pay). That single /16 can easily be divided into 256 /24s, but now each of those 256 /24s requires its own routing slot in the global routing table. Repeat as needed. It doesn't take long to imagine the routing table growing substantially (i.e., doubling/tripling/quadrupling who knows where it ends). (For those that want to know more about the overall problem of route scaling, have a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-radir-problem-statement) > And I have yet to obtain a real answer of how I can deploy a new IPv6 > network without simultaneously having to deploy a parallel IPv4 network > - every time I need an IPv6 block I'm going to need an IPv4 block. All > of those devices on store shelves are V4 only. And I have yet to see > really good answers to the question of how an IPv6 client (user sitting > at a web broswer) is going to seemlessly reach and use all of those > IPv4-only services out there on the installed base internet. There is no good/easy/perfect/ideal way for an IPv6-only site/device to communicate with an IPv4-only site/device. That is life. That is reality. People need to get over it. That is why the IPv6 deployment recommendation is dual-stack. If you try to make an IPv6-only device talk to an IPv4-device, you need to do protocol translation of some sort. There are technical/operational issues with that approach. The simple summary of this is that your application simply may not work when such translation is done, as translation doesn't work in all cases. The IETF has oscillated between developing such an approach and deprecating it. Have a look at RFC4966 "Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4966.txt). My personal opionion is that the IETF should resurrect the technology and try to make it is usable as possible, while documenting the known problems. But it will never be ideal and hence it is NOT a magic bullet, like some would like it it be. > In my mind I perceive IPv6 as a new internet that lays alongside the > existing IPv4 internet. It shares the physical wires, yes, but not much > else. I don't like this view, as it emphasizes differences and suggests a walled-garden between the two. In truth, IPv6 is a small evolution from IPv4. 98% of IPv6 is the same as IPv4. There is much more similarity than there is difference. (Yet people seem to focus on the differences...) Indeed, it is that similarity that ultimately makes folk unwilling to deploy IPv6. A basic design decision that was made early was that the IPv6 service model would stay exactly the same as it is for IPv4. That way, TCP, HTTP, the DNS (and all existing protocols) would continue to work exactly the same over IPv6 as over IPv4 (module differences in the packet format, which are more syntactic than substantative). This was done to ease interoperability. But, because IPv6 doesn't provide a flashy/new/cool service (compared to IPv4), it's also pretty much impossible to design a killer application that only works over IPv6 and can't work over IPv4. The only one I can imagine is one that involves exploiting IPv6's massive address space and its ability to get away from the needs for NATs. > Apart from IPv4 address scarcity - a problem that we have learned to > resolve in large part through NATs, there is not a lot of pressure > to move. NATs do not resolve the address scarcity problem. They are at best a tactical approach. (I'll expand on this in a separate note). > It is still my opinion that we are headed for a lumpy internet - with > lumps of address spaces connected by application level gateways. Absolutely. ALGs are one way to have IPv6-only applications be able to interact with IPv4-only applications. They are no panacea though. For one thing, you need one for each individual application/protocol... > Such a lumpy internet would resemble the cellular telephone networks > in that a few services - such as voice calls - easily and fairly > transparently cross the boundaries. But those boundaries will > become difficult to traverse for new things or for user-created > tools; innovation from the edge will be limited to occur only within > a lump not across lumps. Actually, I see this as the inevitable direction we are heading in with IPv4 and NATs. IPv6 provides the only viable alternative to this (unfortunate) model. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 26 12:23:52 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:23:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: If I may, I very much agree with what Thomas wrote below, especially the need to think of this as "co-existence", not just "transition". Especially, as Avri points out, some of these technical and operatoinal challenges and homeworks require interpretation into policy/social/business actions. If there are no such needs, I/we can go back home and sleep - let engineers solve the problem. But, being a member of civil society on this list, and engaged with the policy area of Internet for more than 15 years mostly standing on the end-user viewpoint, I must say IP address makes the core of Internet and its use, application, business, etc, and the transition or coexistence of two different IP address systems require good attention and observation from non-techie people but responsible for these social areas wheter we like it or not. First of all, I like to see "accurate" information and reasoned discourse. What I like to avoid is subjective judgements without clear or proven facts. Of course, this list is not the place for technical details. But the benefit of this list is, to me, people like Thomas, Avri or Karl, some of the most knowledgeable people on the technical side can directly feed the information to the policy oriented people who are also exprerts in Internet policy area, if not technical experts. Today, there was a first meeting of Internet Policy Study Group hosted by MIC of Japanese government, and I was on that group. On top of the net neutrality and broadband competition issues, IPv4v6 issue is also identified. I took the floor and added that "we better consider it as coexistence, not only transition". I just came back from APRICOT (which is still ongoing till end of this week), and there is IPv6 hours after NANOG. IF you are interested in some technical work, this link might be of your interest, or so I found: http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/ best, izumi 2008/2/27, Thomas Narten : > > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > > deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that > > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single > > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. > > > > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know > > exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will > > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in > > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). > > > One of the oft-repeated myths that seems to continue making the rounds > is that IPv6 is about "transition" and that it is necessary to move > away from IPv4 ASAP. > > Transition is a poor term, it turns out, because people associate the > term transition with "must stop using IPv4" and that raises all sorts > of alarm bells (and rightly so). > > It has been an assumption from the very beginning that there would be > a very long coexistance period where IPv4 and IPv6 would both be in > use. Many years. Decades more likely. This is not new thinking. It is > not some recent realization that wasn't thought about from the > beginning. (Though it is true that people have argued forever just how > long a coexistance period would be.) > > I can imagine data centers and other parts of an enterprise > effectively NEVER turning off IPv4. Why should they? It would only > make sense to turn off IPv4 if it is no longer working or > necessary. Think about legacy apps and cobol. They still exist. :-) > You don't change things that are working unless you have a compelling > reason to. The same will be the case with IPv4 deployments. > > > > this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to > > connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with > > all that means about end to end reachability. > > > The reality is that we don't have that today with IPv4. We have a > world in which some parts of the internet reach some other parts of > the world, that is, where the set of destinations I can reach may be > very different than the set of destinations you can reach. This has to > do with routing and how the routing infrastructure actually works as a > business (e.g., due to policy considerations, there may be no route to > me (or you) in some parts of the Internet). It also has to do with the > widespread use of NATs/Firewalls, where many machines do not have > direct connectivity to other machines. > > So, I don't think its entirely useful to talk about "a single global > Internet" except at a very high level. Having IPv6 and IPv4 coexist > will add strains to this (e.g., one particular IPv4 device might not > be able to communicate with another particular IPv6 device). But the > reasons for this will be varied and may be just fine. E.g., consider > email. Email works today because mail is relayed from one part of the > Internet to another, allowing sites that are not really directly > connected to communicate. This sort of thing will also work for > IPv4/IPv6. E.g., an IPv6-only site can relay mail to gateway that does > dual stack, which in turns relays to IPv4 destinations. This is > already done today, and will surely also happen in an IPv4/IPv6 world. > > My point here is that having IPv4 and IPv6 does add some complications > to the ideal of a single global internet, but it's not a black and > white kind of thing. We don't even have such an internet today (if one > looks closely), though most people don't notice. > > And when you think of IPv6 deployment, think "coexistance". IPv4 will > not go away anytime soon. Or even within our lifetimes, most > likely. That is perfectly OK. > > > Thomas > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 12:40:51 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:40:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <45ed74050802260940k440cfb50i4593e45484843cce@mail.gmail.com> A cheerful Ah and Aha! *"the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability."* Dear Izumi and All: This seems a core statement, and quite compatible with *Respectful Interfaces*. Is this like a transcript of statement made, or a statement here, or a blend? Helpful, in any event. Best, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (of, yes, *Respectful Interfaces*. On 2/22/08, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 22 Feb 2008, at 09:13, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > In the beginning, > > Japanese Internet community (and myself) tried to focus on > > IPv4 depletion, while RIRs and ISOC on IPv6 transition. > > > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. > > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know > exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). > > while the technical details, and especially the technical ontology, of > why IPv6 is the way it is, or why the transition technology is the way > it is probably a wast of time for this list, understanding some of > that seems necessary in order to be able to plan for a policy that > makes deployment and success possible. > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 26 12:59:38 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:59:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Thank you for the video files (chunks) and may we have a list here? Message-ID: <45ed74050802260959t45c51fe0l93aa1dda2b48dc89@mail.gmail.com> Greetings and many thanks, having just viewed the recorded-concluding session 'on the fly' (video chunk, .mpg format) and eager for a whole list of addresses for "chunks.". It will be super to have it in succession (just caught this last URL in the chat). Splendid to have this access and be able to pass it forward to others, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. -------------- 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 Feb 26 15:53:09 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:53:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <131d01c878b9$a1ee48d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Agreed, we need to look at this as co-existence. If TCP/IP networks survive, IPv4 and NATs are not going to go away via deployment of IPv6, or not for some years or decades. So we need to understand very carefully what the coexistence issues are and how they can be best dealt with. Central to this are a range of immediate deployment issues. That should be the focus of anyone wanting to encourage IPv6 deployment. We also need to look carefully at what co-existence means in practice. ARCHITECTURE Architecturally, we have moved from IPv4+NATS or IPv6 to IPv4+NATS+IPv6+dual-stack (with a strong probability of IPv6 NATS as well). Not pretty! RATIONALE FOR DEPLOYING IPv6 When we accept co-existence, we then have to ask why would anybody bother to deploy IPv6. It’s a lot of hard work, particularly for large corporations. I realize a few governments are now beginning to mandate IPv6 in tenders. That will make them all behave, I hear some say. I doubt it - for years in the early 1990s governments mandated OSI in tenders and we just got on with deploying TCP/IP instead and created clever words in tender documents to avoid the rather silly requirement being put on corporations by governments who didn't really realize what was involved. Government tender requirements will not succeed in enforcing IPv6 deployment. Being forced to by governments aside, the only reason in a co-existence scenario that anyone apart from geeks would bother to upgrade would be because they cannot obtain an IP address unless they go IPv6. So, the address-rich have no motivation - only the address-poor have sufficient reason to bother. This creates a series of public policy issues. Market or no market, the address poor are almost certain to be largely confined to LDCs and/or those least able to afford to purchase in an open market. As the address rich don't need to bother, there will be little in the way of hardware and software to smooth widespread adoption. Clever solutions will arise but they are likely to be based on variations of NATs, not adoption of IPv6. Either way, connectivity is not good. So yes, I believe we have to accept and understand co-existence. But we also have to understand that it may have social ramifications we don't understand yet. I think that we have to realize that co-existence is not pretty, which is why there is a strong argument for transition. Therefore, against the logic, socially and architecturally, of the current transition strategy, we have to consider the complete lack of a compelling reason to migrate and the realities of human behavior as factors making any successful transition highly unlikely. Therefore, like it or not, co-existence is with us for a considerable period of time. This is not an easy issue! Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza at anr.org] Sent: 27 February 2008 04:24 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Thomas Narten Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format If I may, I very much agree with what Thomas wrote below, especially the need to think of this as "co-existence", not just "transition". Especially, as Avri points out, some of these technical and operatoinal challenges and homeworks require interpretation into policy/social/business actions. If there are no such needs, I/we can go back home and sleep - let engineers solve the problem. But, being a member of civil society on this list, and engaged with the policy area of Internet for more than 15 years mostly standing on the end-user viewpoint, I must say IP address makes the core of Internet and its use, application, business, etc, and the transition or coexistence of two different IP address systems require good attention and observation from non-techie people but responsible for these social areas wheter we like it or not. First of all, I like to see "accurate" information and reasoned discourse. What I like to avoid is subjective judgements without clear or proven facts. Of course, this list is not the place for technical details. But the benefit of this list is, to me, people like Thomas, Avri or Karl, some of the most knowledgeable people on the technical side can directly feed the information to the policy oriented people who are also exprerts in Internet policy area, if not technical experts. Today, there was a first meeting of Internet Policy Study Group hosted by MIC of Japanese government, and I was on that group. On top of the net neutrality and broadband competition issues, IPv4v6 issue is also identified. I took the floor and added that "we better consider it as coexistence, not only transition". I just came back from APRICOT (which is still ongoing till end of this week), and there is IPv6 hours after NANOG. IF you are interested in some technical work, this link might be of your interest, or so I found: http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/ best, izumi 2008/2/27, Thomas Narten : > > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > > deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that > > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single > > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. > > > > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know > > exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will > > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in > > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). > > > One of the oft-repeated myths that seems to continue making the rounds > is that IPv6 is about "transition" and that it is necessary to move > away from IPv4 ASAP. > > Transition is a poor term, it turns out, because people associate the > term transition with "must stop using IPv4" and that raises all sorts > of alarm bells (and rightly so). > > It has been an assumption from the very beginning that there would be > a very long coexistance period where IPv4 and IPv6 would both be in > use. Many years. Decades more likely. This is not new thinking. It is > not some recent realization that wasn't thought about from the > beginning. (Though it is true that people have argued forever just how > long a coexistance period would be.) > > I can imagine data centers and other parts of an enterprise > effectively NEVER turning off IPv4. Why should they? It would only > make sense to turn off IPv4 if it is no longer working or > necessary. Think about legacy apps and cobol. They still exist. :-) > You don't change things that are working unless you have a compelling > reason to. The same will be the case with IPv4 deployments. > > > > this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to > > connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with > > all that means about end to end reachability. > > > The reality is that we don't have that today with IPv4. We have a > world in which some parts of the internet reach some other parts of > the world, that is, where the set of destinations I can reach may be > very different than the set of destinations you can reach. This has to > do with routing and how the routing infrastructure actually works as a > business (e.g., due to policy considerations, there may be no route to > me (or you) in some parts of the Internet). It also has to do with the > widespread use of NATs/Firewalls, where many machines do not have > direct connectivity to other machines. > > So, I don't think its entirely useful to talk about "a single global > Internet" except at a very high level. Having IPv6 and IPv4 coexist > will add strains to this (e.g., one particular IPv4 device might not > be able to communicate with another particular IPv6 device). But the > reasons for this will be varied and may be just fine. E.g., consider > email. Email works today because mail is relayed from one part of the > Internet to another, allowing sites that are not really directly > connected to communicate. This sort of thing will also work for > IPv4/IPv6. E.g., an IPv6-only site can relay mail to gateway that does > dual stack, which in turns relays to IPv4 destinations. This is > already done today, and will surely also happen in an IPv4/IPv6 world. > > My point here is that having IPv4 and IPv6 does add some complications > to the ideal of a single global internet, but it's not a black and > white kind of thing. We don't even have such an internet today (if one > looks closely), though most people don't notice. > > And when you think of IPv6 deployment, think "coexistance". IPv4 will > not go away anytime soon. Or even within our lifetimes, most > likely. That is perfectly OK. > > > Thomas > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1297 - Release Date: 25/02/2008 09:22 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date: 26/02/2008 09:08 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 16:41:00 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:41:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <33fe01c874ba$7237d5a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <33fe01c874ba$7237d5a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <200802262141.m1QLf0MU032756@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Getting IPv6 deployed should be of great interest to this community. The consequences of NOT deploying IPv6 will be large, and from a public policy perspective, overwhelmingly negative. Will IPv6 deployment be cost free? Or easy? Certainly not. No new service roll out comes easy or without cost. That said, do not confuse this with "IPv6 is undeployable" or "IPv6 doesn't work", or "after ten years of promises, it's clear that IPv6 won't happen", etc., etc., as some seem prone to saying. And also be skeptical about sound bite quotes taken out of context, or made by folk who do not themselves have experience/expertise with IPv6. But make no mistake. What is at stake is the future of the Internet as we know it, and all the benefits it has brought us. Really! Consider IPv4 today. Rather amazing what it has created/enabled and the applications and services that have been built on top of it. This has been made possible by the simple service model IP creates, whereby any machine can talk to any other machine. IP is an enabling technology. That is its fundamental beauty and strength. Today, the world consists largely of islands of "pure" IPv4 connectivity, with NATs in between. NATs mostly work pretty well, for the simple (but limited) client/server model that is widely in use today. In this simple (but also restrictive) model, pretty much everything is accessed via a web browser. The key to all this is that all communication is initiated by a (dumb) client browser, and all services are accessed via HTTP from some web server that is out in the Public Internet. The trouble with NAT is that it only allows one to open connections in one direction. I (at home) can initiate connections to the rest of the Public Internet, but you cannot initiate a connection to me. This is a fundamental restriction of NATs. This simple client/server NAT model is quite limiting. It doesn't permit you to (easily) set up a web (or any other) server at home and have others access it. NATs won't let you do this (or at least, not without significant limitations, not to mention that it takes a serious techie to figure out how to configure things and make them actually work - something the vast majority of users simply cannot do). Consider a cell phone with an IP address (the model of all future devices...). Life sure would be a straightforward if "phone calls" simply consisted of the caller being able to initiate a direct connection to your cell phone. That simply doesn't work in a world full of NATs. (And don't be fooled by skype -- they have developed a lot of complexity to work around this problem -- complexity that has a real cost). As the IPv4 free pool reaches exhaustion, it will become increasingly expensive to obtain public IPv4 address space. Whether it actually comes to people buying addresses on eBay or not remains to be seen, but as the free pool shrinks, the law of supply and demand will kick in. Costs will inevitably go up. That almost certainly means people will just use more private address space and increase the usage of NATs. Why is such a future undesireable? Consider: - NATs break a fundamental property of the original IP model. While one might say (and some do) that this is just a technical detail, it turns out to be subtly critical. There are entire classes of protocols that don't work properly in the presence of NATs and can't easily be deployed when NAT is present. Peer-to-peer applications come to mind (as one broad class). - today, there are already applications that don't work properly in the presence of NATs or have reliability problems (i.e., work intermittently). The sad thing is, people almost never realize that NAT is the cause of the problem. When they reboot their machine, things may start working again. So they conclude it was just another bug in Windows rather than understanding where the real problem lies. - With NATs, it simply won't be possible to deploy entire new (yet uninvented) classes of protocols and applications. If they don't work thorugh NAT, they simply won't be deployable (we are already there today, at the global Internet level). Today, NATs require special plugins that understand a handful of well-known protocols that normally wouldn't work through a NAT. To deploy a new (non-simple client/server) application, however, you have the classic chicken-and-egg problem of you can't deploy it without having an appropriate NAT plugin, and NAT vendors won't develop a plugin for an application that is not already widely deployed. Will the next Netscape/Google/eBay never happen because the next cool application simply can't be deployed? Quite possibly. (Sadly, the larger public won't ever miss something they never imagined they could have.) - The Internet continues to grow exponentially. While we are (generally) today talking about one NAT between you and the rest of the world, the future will be multiple levels of NAT. The overall robustness and reliability of the Internet will decrease, precisely as we become increasingly/critically dependent on a rock-solid 24x7 network infrastructure for just about everything. - Today, the vast majority of organizations do not deal with NAT internally. That will change. Different departments/divisions will be forced to add NATs (how else will you have address space to deploy tens of thousands of sensors in a building?), and services that used to work just fine within an organization will become problematical. Imagine having a NAT device between you and your accounting or HR department. There will be applications that stop working when this happens. Or only work if security is disabled, etc., etc. The net of it is that the community has a basic choice before it: - Just continue with IPv4 and use more NATs. Costs will go up. It will be increasingly difficult to deploy new services. Lots of band aides, hacks and duct tape to make things work. Overall, the Internet becomes less robust and increasingly brittle. No light at the end of the tunnel. - Start deploying IPv6. Where the use of IPv4/NATs becomes problematical, IPv6 offers a more workable/scalable (and lower cost) alternative. There is an actual light at the end of the tunnel. In both cases, costs will go up. There is no free lunch here. The choice is whether to invest those costs up front in IPv6 (and have a more viable long-term future) or just continue to patch IPv4 (at increasing cost) with no end in site. The reason IPv6 has not been widely deployed yet is simple economics. People look at the bottom line and say "I don't see the return on investment in the short term for deploying IPv6, and I don't see a problem with IPv4/NATs". For better or worse, the pain level of IPv4/NATs is simply not viewed as significant. Hence, no urgency to deploy IPv6. >From a public policy perspective, I find this rather depressing. We have a classic tragedy of the commons here. Everyone makes local decisions (to not deploy IPv6, since the short-term cost/benefit of NAT is better, and the hard-to-quantify in $$ benefits of IPv6 are all long term) to the detriment of the commons as a whole. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Feb 26 17:45:28 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:45:28 +1100 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <200802262141.m1QLf0MU032756@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Thomas, and thanks for that. A couple of questions to help me understand further. > The trouble with NAT is that it only allows one to open connections in > one direction. I (at home) can initiate connections to the rest of the > Public Internet, but you cannot initiate a connection to me. This is a > fundamental restriction of NATs. My understanding is that the major deployment of NATs is with corporate networks and government networks. Am I right? And isn't the capacity to ensure that you cannot make a direct connection from Internet to any one of hundreds of thousands of computers in corporate networks fundamental to network security as currently practiced? In other words, aren't they going to want to have NATs for network security, IPv6 or no IPv6? So won't NATs just live on? > Consider a cell phone with an IP address (the model of all future > devices...). Life sure would be a straightforward if "phone calls" > simply consisted of the caller being able to initiate a direct > connection to your cell phone. That simply doesn't work in a world > full of NATs. But does it work anyway within IPv6, which, like its predecessor, was not designed for mobility? Isn't one of the unresolved technical issues with IPv6 mobility and multihoming? Doesn't multihoming mean that if I change away from my home base (as one tends to do with a mobile phone) the IPv6 address will have to change, i.e when a node changes its point of attachment to the Internet, its address becomes topologically incorrect? I understood that the change of the point of attachment is still problematic? It would help me to understand this better if people with knowledge can answer these questions in simple language such as that used by Thomas in this posting! 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 www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date: 26/02/2008 09:08 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Feb 26 18:00:32 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <80680417-487C-4F5F-BC62-F3A183A7C952@psg.com> On 26 Feb 2008, at 23:45, Ian Peter wrote: > > My understanding is that the major deployment of NATs is with > corporate > networks and government networks. Am I right? And isn't the capacity > to > ensure that you cannot make a direct connection from Internet to any > one of > hundreds of thousands of computers in corporate networks fundamental > to > network security as currently practiced? In other words, aren't they > going > to want to have NATs for network security, IPv6 or no IPv6? So won't > NATs > just live on? NATs really only provide false security. i.e you may think they are hiding the network behind, but they aren't really. One can still often tell what is behind them. They are not really firewalls, though a lot of NATS come packaged with a firewall.. Firewalls will remain. And I think NATs and application gateways will remain And the reason I believe that NATs will remain in IPv6 despite the huge address space is that we still will not get enough addresses from our ISPs or rather we still need to pay extra for multiple addresses (no matter what the RFCs or RIRs say about distributing the addresses in blocks) so we will still have NATs. This, BTW, is not something that is universally agreed upon - 1-2 years ago 98 in 100 at the IETF would have sworn that there would never be an IPv6 NAT. But it is starting to look like NATs will indeed persist, even if they are not a security measure. I think that the sooner we learn how to live with them, the better. a. Ps. I was one of the 2/100 who never believed NATs would persist when we migrated to IPv6. It will be obvious some day whether I was wrong. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 22:15:26 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:15:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <200802270315.m1R3FQAP010726@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> "Ian Peter" writes: > My understanding is that the major deployment of NATs is with corporate > networks and government networks. Am I right? Depends on how you count. In sheer numbers, it's probably home users. Probably 90+% of all home users are behind a NAT box. In the US home/office market (characterized by cheap -- under $50 -- "routers") they all perform NAT. Indeed, they are arguably not even proper routers, because the NAT functionality is integral and *cannot* be disabled. When I last looked (a few years back), I couldn't find an off-the-shelf (cheap) router in which I could disable NAT. In talking to others, this is the norm. Bottom line: everyone is using NATs. Home users, small businesses, and major enterprises. > And isn't the capacity to ensure that you cannot make a direct > connection from Internet to any one of hundreds of thousands of > computers in corporate networks fundamental to network security as > currently practiced? In other words, aren't they going to want to > have NATs for network security, IPv6 or no IPv6? So won't NATs just > live on? You just demonstrated how much of an uphill battle it will be to change the NAT mindset. People have been sold on the idea that NATs provide security (which has to be good, right?). And yes, they do. But that is because they have a built-in firewall. It is the firewall that provides the security. You don't need the NAT functionality to get the security part... Well, it is also true that if you put your computer in a locked room and make the doors one-way exits only, you also get security. And NATs in a sense do that, because they only allow outgoing connections (by design), so it's not really possible to allow inbound connections --- whether hostile or friendly. With a proper firewall, you can configure the security. That is, you can select wich incoming connections to allow (i.e., those from safe protocols/applications), while disallowing others. You have a choice. With NAT, there is only one setting: disallow all incoming traffic. > > Consider a cell phone with an IP address (the model of all future > > devices...). Life sure would be a straightforward if "phone calls" > > simply consisted of the caller being able to initiate a direct > > connection to your cell phone. That simply doesn't work in a world > > full of NATs. > But does it work anyway within IPv6, which, like its predecessor, was not > designed for mobility? Isn't one of the unresolved technical issues with > IPv6 mobility It is just as resolved (or unresolved) in IPv4 as in IPv6, in some sense. So I am not sure what this means or if this is (again) supposed to suggest that IPv6 is not yet finished and more needs to be done. IPv6 provides an enlarged address space. That is the key benefit. It doesn't solve a range of other problems that people wish it would solve. > and multihoming? Doesn't multihoming mean that if I change away from > my home base (as one tends to do with a mobile phone) the IPv6 > address will have to change, i.e when a node changes its point of > attachment to the Internet, its address becomes topologically > incorrect? I understood that the change of the point of attachment > is still problematic? Multhoming is just as problematic in IPv6 as it is in IPv4. In other words, there is no magic solution here. People often wish IPv6 solved this problem better than IPv4 does, but wishing doesn't make it so. One of the big frustrations with IPv6 for many is that it doesn't solve a whole lot of problems that would have been nice to solve. But it turns out that many of those problems are fundamentally hard to solve, and its simply not as simple as saying "since we have to upgrade to IPv6 anyway, let's fix a bunch of other things too". IPv6 has "fixed" some of the easy things that we know how to fix. For the more substantative problems (like multihoming or a better mobility) people are still figuring out how best to solve those problems. Solutions simply aren't on the table today. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 22:26:53 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:26:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <80680417-487C-4F5F-BC62-F3A183A7C952@psg.com> References: <14a701c878c9$4ffefe10$8b00a8c0@IAN> <80680417-487C-4F5F-BC62-F3A183A7C952@psg.com> Message-ID: <200802270326.m1R3Qrbr015526@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Avri Doria writes: > NATs really only provide false security. i.e you may think they are > hiding the network behind, but they aren't really. One can still > often tell what is behind them. They are not really firewalls, though > a lot of NATS come packaged with a firewall.. Indeed! > Firewalls will remain. > And I think NATs and application gateways will remain Indeed! > And the reason I believe that NATs will remain in IPv6 despite the > huge address space is that we still will not get enough addresses from > our ISPs or rather we still need to pay extra for multiple addresses > (no matter what the RFCs or RIRs say about distributing the addresses > in blocks) so we will still have NATs. I think NATs will remain with IPv6 too. NATs have an associated set of pros/cons. For some, the cons outweigh the pros. Others will see things differently. But with IPv6, the use of NATs will be a choice. With IPv4, one will have no choice but to use them. But, I disagree with: we still will not get enough addresses from our ISPs or rather we still need to pay extra for multiple addresses (no matter what the RFCs or RIRs say about distributing the addresses in blocks) so we will still have NATs. The RIRs have established policies for assigning IPv6 address space to ISPs and end users. Having worked in that community for some time, I am confident that the majority of folk in that space (and this includes ISPs that are giving out IPv6 addresses) understand that an important benefit of IPv6 is it's large address space, and that it is important that end users be able to get lots of address space. The existing policies on the books today (developed via RIR PDPs) encourage the assignment of the equivalent of more than a class B address block to pretty much everyone (yes, even home users). In IPv6 terms, you get a /56 (or even more). That is enough space for 256 subnets, and each subnet can have an almost unlimited number of hosts. So, really, with IPv6 end sites get plenty of address space. Not ba single address, but thousands and thousands, and this is for simple home sites. Larger sites can get more. This is the existing policy today and the early deployments have made such assignments. Indeed, I have not heard of a single example where only a single IPv6 address is given to an customer. In contrast, getting a single IP address (as the starting point) is the norm for IPv4 Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 03:07:20 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:07:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <131d01c878b9$a1ee48d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <131d01c878b9$a1ee48d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Ian, 2008/2/26 Ian Peter : > Agreed, we need to look at this as co-existence. If TCP/IP networks survive, > IPv4 and NATs are not going to go away via deployment of IPv6, or not for > some years or decades. So we need to understand very carefully what the > coexistence issues are and how they can be best dealt with. > > Central to this are a range of immediate deployment issues. That should be > the focus of anyone wanting to encourage IPv6 deployment. > > We also need to look carefully at what co-existence means in practice. > > ARCHITECTURE > > Architecturally, we have moved from > > IPv4+NATS or IPv6 > > to > > IPv4+NATS+IPv6+dual-stack (with a strong probability of IPv6 NATS as well). + lots of tunnels i suspect http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt > This creates a series of public policy issues. Market or no market, the > address poor are almost certain to be largely confined to LDCs I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current proposals for v4 exhaustion. I think I have pointed out before that in the current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates). and/or those > least able to afford to purchase in an open market. There is no open market yet, there may never be. Tom Vest had some interesting insight on NANOG about this recently: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06173.html As the address rich > don't need to bother, there will be little in the way of hardware and > software to smooth widespread adoption. Clever solutions will arise but they > are likely to be based on variations of NATs, not adoption of IPv6. Either > way, connectivity is not good. Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few minutes via a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket surgery involved. > > So yes, I believe we have to accept and understand co-existence. But we also > have to understand that it may have social ramifications we don't understand > yet. > > I think that we have to realize that co-existence is not pretty, which is > why there is a strong argument for transition. >From my perpective, transition involves dual stack(co-existence). I don't see why these terms mean 2 different things, one is part of the other. I don't think you'll ever get a "flag day" transition, if that's what you are after. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Feb 27 04:55:25 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:25:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080227095521.75D68E0863@smtp3.electricembers.net> McTim, "I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current proposals for v4 exhaustion. I think I have pointed out before that in the current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates)." This is a correct statement if you believe that the current usage pattern across these countries/continents will be stable beyond the short term and is even_desirable_or_acceptable. However, if our goal is to build a "inclusive information society where all people have access to knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in improving their quality of life", then it is reasonable to assume that people of Africa and Asia will also need to have same 'levels' of participation in the information society as those currently in US and EU have. Meaning that the usage of the Internet will need to be similar across these geographies (in which case nearly 1/2 of the total addresses ought to be just from India and China!). A progressive and forward looking vision that we need to own and work for would include enabling creation of the information society visualised in the WSIS DOP. This also implies we work to set up proactive governance structures that understand their responsibilities in this regard. 'Industry led' governance structures could not be expected to deal with these larger complex issues since these geographies do not offer sufficient 'incentives'. Whereas the history of social movements suggests that change on a large scale (including items like schooling), requires significant collaborative / public efforts. IG will be an opportunity to innovate new structures and processes for such collaborations across different groups in society. Including the wider CS constituencies we spoke of sometime back on this list. This discussion has a parallel to the discussions on climate change/global warming. While the US (or some in the USG) would like to compare the absolute emissions of fossil fuel use of India, China and US, as the basis for emission control; the developing countries have argued that this is not fair and what we need to compare is per-capita emissions rather than absolute emissions, since we do not aim to build a society where certain countries/economies 'enjoy higher standards of living' and others condemned to 'lower subsistence levels'. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format Ian, 2008/2/26 Ian Peter : > Agreed, we need to look at this as co-existence. If TCP/IP networks > survive, > IPv4 and NATs are not going to go away via deployment of IPv6, or not > for some years or decades. So we need to understand very carefully > what the coexistence issues are and how they can be best dealt with. > > Central to this are a range of immediate deployment issues. That > should be the focus of anyone wanting to encourage IPv6 deployment. > > We also need to look carefully at what co-existence means in practice. > > ARCHITECTURE > > Architecturally, we have moved from > > IPv4+NATS or IPv6 > > to > > IPv4+NATS+IPv6+dual-stack (with a strong probability of IPv6 NATS as well). + lots of tunnels i suspect http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt > This creates a series of public policy issues. Market or no market, > the address poor are almost certain to be largely confined to LDCs I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current proposals for v4 exhaustion. I think I have pointed out before that in the current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates). and/or those > least able to afford to purchase in an open market. There is no open market yet, there may never be. Tom Vest had some interesting insight on NANOG about this recently: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06173.html As the address rich > don't need to bother, there will be little in the way of hardware and > software to smooth widespread adoption. Clever solutions will arise > but they are likely to be based on variations of NATs, not adoption > of IPv6. Either way, connectivity is not good. Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few minutes via a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket surgery involved. > > So yes, I believe we have to accept and understand co-existence. But > we also have to understand that it may have social ramifications we > don't understand yet. > > I think that we have to realize that co-existence is not pretty, > which is why there is a strong argument for transition. >From my perpective, transition involves dual stack(co-existence). I don't see why these terms mean 2 different things, one is part of the other. I don't think you'll ever get a "flag day" transition, if that's what you are after. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 27 05:13:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:43:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080227095521.75D68E0863@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080227095521.75D68E0863@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <02ad01c87929$5d3fee30$17bfca90$@net> > This is a correct statement if you believe that the current usage > pattern across these countries/continents will be stable beyond the short term > and is even_desirable_or_acceptable. You can certainly budget for overages .. and you can also budget for the fact that a substantial part of Africa is quite probably served out of ARIN or RIPE IP space because of satellite connectivity from providers in Canada, Israel etc. But what does desirability, or acceptability, or even, god help us, an inclusive information society, pie in the sky and a chevy in every courtyard have anything at all to do with these projections? These are not subsistence levels McTim is talking about. He is referring to the current and future projected availability of spare capacity and resources. Which AFRINIC does have, and to a certain extent so does APNIC, as compared to ARIN and RIPE. And these resources will last far longer if they are sensibly conserved and managed, the way depletable fossil fuels like coal are conserved. Capacity building among ISPs in these regions to efficiently manage IP space is one way to go .. a lot of them that I've seen simply use an excel sheet or other manual methods to track IP space, and quite frequently lose track of IPs they assign to customers .. forgetting to reclaim them and reallocate them when a new customer comes in, so that huge amounts of IP space that they believe allocated are actually lying unused. There is a distressing trend among civil society - at least on this list - to completely overlook the importance of capacity building and efficient management of resources, in favor of these very standard arguments about ownership and control. Even though the model being criticized is fair, equitable and member driven. AFRINIC, APNIC etc policies are set by their own members - the actual users of the IP space, ISPs who provide services to their customers, and voted in under a rough consensus model. Now, I will probably be told that the real owners of these IPs are the people - the dialup, cable, dsl, collocation etc customers - who actually use them. Not really applicable when these are utilities provided to the public, like a phone number, or metered gas and electricity. Plugging a phone into a jack or a toaster into an electrical socket doesn't make you a phone company or an electrical utility, just their customer. And the role of a customer in governance of these utilities that he uses, he depends on, is known .. even respected - but there's no control there. Nor should there be. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 27 06:32:04 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:32:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thomas: The reason people use the "transition" term in connection with v4-v6 is the possibility of address space exhaustion in the v4 space. Your comments below seem to imply a leisurely, choice-based migration - which for some players may indeed be the case, but what seems more likely is a game in which those who move to v6 first create costs and burdens for themselves and so everyone has an incentive to let others move first and stay in the v4 space as long as possible. So, from my point of view the issue is not the abandonment of v4, but getting stuck in it forever. > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two > > addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale > > deployment and success. this is for some definition of success that > > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single > > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability. > > > > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,' i still don't know > > exactly what IPv6 transition means, but if it means that there will > > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in > > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet). > > One of the oft-repeated myths that seems to continue making the rounds > is that IPv6 is about "transition" and that it is necessary to move > away from IPv4 ASAP. > > Transition is a poor term, it turns out, because people associate the > term transition with "must stop using IPv4" and that raises all sorts > of alarm bells (and rightly so). > > It has been an assumption from the very beginning that there would be > a very long coexistance period where IPv4 and IPv6 would both be in > use. Many years. Decades more likely. This is not new thinking. It is > not some recent realization that wasn't thought about from the > beginning. (Though it is true that people have argued forever just how > long a coexistance period would be.) > > I can imagine data centers and other parts of an enterprise > effectively NEVER turning off IPv4. Why should they? It would only > make sense to turn off IPv4 if it is no longer working or > necessary. Think about legacy apps and cobol. They still exist. :-) > You don't change things that are working unless you have a compelling > reason to. The same will be the case with IPv4 deployments. > > > this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to > > connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with > > all that means about end to end reachability. > > The reality is that we don't have that today with IPv4. We have a > world in which some parts of the internet reach some other parts of > the world, that is, where the set of destinations I can reach may be > very different than the set of destinations you can reach. This has to > do with routing and how the routing infrastructure actually works as a > business (e.g., due to policy considerations, there may be no route to > me (or you) in some parts of the Internet). It also has to do with the > widespread use of NATs/Firewalls, where many machines do not have > direct connectivity to other machines. > > So, I don't think its entirely useful to talk about "a single global > Internet" except at a very high level. Having IPv6 and IPv4 coexist > will add strains to this (e.g., one particular IPv4 device might not > be able to communicate with another particular IPv6 device). But the > reasons for this will be varied and may be just fine. E.g., consider > email. Email works today because mail is relayed from one part of the > Internet to another, allowing sites that are not really directly > connected to communicate. This sort of thing will also work for > IPv4/IPv6. E.g., an IPv6-only site can relay mail to gateway that does > dual stack, which in turns relays to IPv4 destinations. This is > already done today, and will surely also happen in an IPv4/IPv6 world. > > My point here is that having IPv4 and IPv6 does add some complications > to the ideal of a single global internet, but it's not a black and > white kind of thing. We don't even have such an internet today (if one > looks closely), though most people don't notice. > > And when you think of IPv6 deployment, think "coexistance". IPv4 will > not go away anytime soon. Or even within our lifetimes, most > likely. That is perfectly OK. > > Thomas > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 27 06:38:46 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:38:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <200802262141.m1QLf0MU032756@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <33fe01c874ba$7237d5a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <200802262141.m1QLf0MU032756@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629920@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] > > Getting IPv6 deployed should be of great interest to this > community. It is of great interest!!! > The consequences of NOT deploying IPv6 will be large Agreed. > and > from a public policy perspective, overwhelmingly negative. That depends on the incidence of costs and benefits, i.e. the distributional effects of the transition. Those distributional effects are in turn functions of public policy. So one cannot make a categorical statement that the policy effects are negative. Rather, one should say that policy(ies) should be forged that maximize the benefits of the transition and avoid costs and disruptions, but do not try to force people into a transition that doesn't make economic or technical sense for specific entities. To put it perhaps more simply deploying or not deploying v6 will be strongly influenced by "public policy", and that means that RIRs and ISPs will be policy makers. It is possible to have policies that promote v6 deployment that have overwhelmingly negative effects, and it is possible to have policies that are designed to preserve the viabnility of v4 as long as possible that might have good public interest effects. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Feb 27 06:57:36 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:57:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080227115736.GA20756@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [27/02/08 06:32 -0500]: >So, from my point of view the issue is not the abandonment of v4, but >getting stuck in it forever. And yes you will find it sticking around forever. Several providers and sites will have zero incentive to ditch v4 and move to v6. Several legacy applications may only run on systems that run v4, not v6. etc. Adoption can't be driven by fiat. It can be - and will be - driven by market needs. Consider these situations - 1. Most mobile phone providers also provide IP connectivity. If a new cellular carrier starts up, and signs up several hundred thousand to a few million users, they can either assign private IP space and NAT their users. Or - as they distribute phones and firmware, and there's lots of v6 capable mobile phones out there - they can simply get a /48 or two and satisfy their needs (assuming one IP per phone). There is enough 6 to 4 connectivity, and the usual plethora of mobile apps and mcommerce providers will migrate en masse to v6 if enough providers do this. 2. Similarly DSL providers can do this - after all, IP addressing is handled at the CPE level (DSL router etc) so a router can hand out either v4 or v6 IPs to connected devices, and assign a public v6 IP, plus provide 6 to 4 connectivity. Or maybe also dual stack (though they can incentivize people to move to v6 by providing natted v4 access and public v6 IPs) Again, a /48 or two will suffice assuming /128 per CPE - Or hell, they can get far larger allocations without breaking into a sweat (customer end sites can get /48 or /64 and bind hundreds of thousands of v6 IPs on a single PC right now as you are aware). If you want this as a governance issue, remember how people used to get "class C" IP space for the asking way back when, and consider that while there's more v6 IPs than there are probably molecules on earth, there's always the possibility of interplanetary internet out there as Vint Cerf is fond of pointing out .. assuming you want to hold future IGFs on Mars with space aliens and argue that earthlings hogged all of v6. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 07:18:47 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:18:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080227095521.75D68E0863@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080227095521.75D68E0863@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Guru, On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Guru wrote: > McTim, > > > "I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current > proposals for v4 exhaustion. I think I have pointed out before that in the > current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have > IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of > v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates)." > > This is a correct statement if you believe that the current usage pattern > across these countries/continents will be stable beyond the short term and > is even_desirable_or_acceptable. > We ONLY HAVE the short term. IANAs IPv4 cookie jar is almost empty, in ~2 years there won't be a crumb left. A few weeks/months after that the US and EU registries will, for all intents and purposes, have no more to distribute. In Africa, we will likely have many more months/(years?) of supply left after the US/EU run out. "Desirability" or "acceptability" has nothing to do with it, it's just the reality of the situation. You cannot change the facts of history, in which much of the v4 space was given in pre-CIDR days. Props to IANA for getting a /8 back recently, but there aren't many more of those going to come back. Certainly not the "Class E" space. > However, if our goal is to build a "inclusive information society where all > people have access to knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and > peoples to achieve their full potential in improving their quality of life", > then it is reasonable to assume that people of Africa and Asia will also > need to have same 'levels' of participation in the information society as > those currently in US and EU have. Meaning that the usage of the Internet > will need to be similar across these geographies (in which case nearly 1/2 > of the total addresses ought to be just from India and China!). > We will have to use v6 for that. > A progressive and forward looking vision that we need to own and work for > would include enabling creation of the information society visualised in the > WSIS DOP. This also implies we work to set up proactive governance > structures that understand their responsibilities in this regard. 'Industry > led' governance structures could not be expected to deal with these larger > complex issues since these geographies do not offer sufficient 'incentives'. So the IETF/IANA/RIRs/et. al came up with and started to distribute v6 addresses over the last decade+ on a whim? just for fun? I'd say they were plenty proactive on this one! > Whereas the history of social movements suggests that change on a large > scale (including items like schooling), requires significant collaborative / > public efforts. IG will be an opportunity to innovate new structures and > processes for such collaborations across different groups in society. > Including the wider CS constituencies we spoke of sometime back on this > list. There are incredibly innovative, bottom up, MS, transparent, inclusive Internet coordination, capacity building and communication bodies already in existence. Two of them are going on this week in Asia. They are talking about v6 sure, but what's more they are actually doing something about v6 deployment. I suggest that if you want to have legitimate stake in this issue or even the ability to speak knowledgeably about it, you'd be far better off spending your limited resources in sending representatives to the Taiwan meetings instead of Geneva. > > This discussion has a parallel to the discussions on climate change/global > warming. While the US (or some in the USG) would like to compare the > absolute emissions of fossil fuel use of India, China and US, as the basis > for emission control; the developing countries have argued that this is not > fair and what we need to compare is per-capita emissions rather than > absolute emissions, since we do not aim to build a society where certain > countries/economies 'enjoy higher standards of living' and others condemned > to 'lower subsistence levels'. And many (hundreds of thousands) of IP addresses PER CAPITA are available to number interfaces owned by Chinese/Indians/Americans/Swedes/$Whoever. These, by necessity, MUST be IPv6 addresses. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 27 07:20:05 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:50:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - attn CS MAG members In-Reply-To: <200802270326.m1R3Qrbr015526@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20080227122109.9A636E0E58@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All Will report on how the open consultations went in some detail a little later. This is quick email between flights to see if I can reach some message to the CS members inside MAG, as closed consultations are on. My hope is that some important direction for future IGFs may need to be decided now, in these consultations. A couple of things from the open consultations yesterday. One thing most people said, loud and clear, was that we shd not be having main session of the same themes again. Nitin captured this sentiment in his summing, and said something to the effect that yes, we cant keep discussing the same things every year, and most people think we should move on.. I have noticed that Nitin is quite strategic in the manner he words his summing up, and one can see glimpses of what may be coming in the manner issues are spoken of by him in this summing up. So, I think it will be quite difficult for the MAG not to respond to this sentiment of not having main sessions with broad themes, as existing. And moving on to more focused issues. But it is easier said than done. A Pandora box will be opened here, and Nitin and secretariat realizes this. But this moving on to more specific issues is important to get more form the IGF. We should see how we can best help things to 'move over' - pushing for things strategically, but also choosing our objectives cautiously, within the scope of possible, for each stage that we face. So, I think the kind of things we should focus on are (1) Insisting that it just has to be main sessions based on focused and specific issues this time. Too many people have spoken for it (2) Have a two way IGF structure - the main sessions plus thematic workshops as a kind of core IGF that is outcome oriented, and the other part of an open forum which continues to be a open place for many kinds of internet related issues that are decided and brought to the IGF bottom up, by different stakeholders. I think if we don't get into this dual structure (and corresponding dual thinking) mode we will remain paralyzed by the conflicting elements of the binary, and not move any direction from where we are. (3) There is some momentum for working groups (WGs)... We need to catch that momentum now. Though it wont be easy to get this. And I noted that Nitin did not catch this element from the consultations in his summing up )(as far as I remember) That makes me think he may not be thinking WGs to be possible/ probable at this stage. But this is our chance to push for them. That will be a major structural change in MAG/ IGF, and pave the way for going forward. Without WGs we can forget main session on specific themes, that are well prepared for etc. MAG in its present form is incapable of doing that kind of work ,which requires figuring out details and making decisions at many micro levels. Full MAG just can t do it... (remember the time when they selected main session speakers) So, in fact all the three points, of main session to be with specific subjects/ issues, a dual structure or the IGF, and WGs are linked, and parts on one whole, of what IGF can be, moving on from where it is. I don't see any other way it can change in any meaningful way. My two cents. Thanks Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Wed Feb 27 07:56:10 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:56:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - attn CS MAG members In-Reply-To: <20080227122109.9A636E0E58@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080227122109.9A636E0E58@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C55DEA.9090902@panos-ao.org> Thank you for your note and the effort, Parminder. The need to move beyond the four classic themes has been well kept I think, same for the working group idea. A Pandora box might be indeed opened and we (IGC) probably have further suggestions to provide regarding that. It's the renewed MAG that will formally decide on them (content wise). After this meeting the mandate of this MAG will end and I hope the renewal/reconstitution will happen very quickly to help the whole process. KL Parminder a écrit : > Hi All > > Will report on how the open consultations went in some detail a little > later. This is quick email between flights to see if I can reach some > message to the CS members inside MAG, as closed consultations are on. My > hope is that some important direction for future IGFs may need to be decided > now, in these consultations. > > A couple of things from the open consultations yesterday. > > One thing most people said, loud and clear, was that we shd not be having > main session of the same themes again. Nitin captured this sentiment in his > summing, and said something to the effect that yes, we cant keep discussing > the same things every year, and most people think we should move on.. I have > noticed that Nitin is quite strategic in the manner he words his summing up, > and one can see glimpses of what may be coming in the manner issues are > spoken of by him in this summing up. > > So, I think it will be quite difficult for the MAG not to respond to this > sentiment of not having main sessions with broad themes, as existing. And > moving on to more focused issues. But it is easier said than done. A Pandora > box will be opened here, and Nitin and secretariat realizes this. But this > moving on to more specific issues is important to get more form the IGF. We > should see how we can best help things to 'move over' - pushing for things > strategically, but also choosing our objectives cautiously, within the scope > of possible, for each stage that we face. > > So, I think the kind of things we should focus on are > > (1) Insisting that it just has to be main sessions based on focused and > specific issues this time. Too many people have spoken for it > > (2) Have a two way IGF structure - the main sessions plus thematic workshops > as a kind of core IGF that is outcome oriented, and the other part of an > open forum which continues to be a open place for many kinds of internet > related issues that are decided and brought to the IGF bottom up, by > different stakeholders. I think if we don't get into this dual structure > (and corresponding dual thinking) mode we will remain paralyzed by the > conflicting elements of the binary, and not move any direction from where we > are. > > (3) There is some momentum for working groups (WGs)... We need to catch that > momentum now. Though it wont be easy to get this. And I noted that Nitin did > not catch this element from the consultations in his summing up )(as far as > I remember) That makes me think he may not be thinking WGs to be possible/ > probable at this stage. But this is our chance to push for them. That will > be a major structural change in MAG/ IGF, and pave the way for going > forward. Without WGs we can forget main session on specific themes, that are > well prepared for etc. MAG in its present form is incapable of doing that > kind of work ,which requires figuring out details and making decisions at > many micro levels. Full MAG just can t do it... (remember the time when they > selected main session speakers) > > So, in fact all the three points, of main session to be with specific > subjects/ issues, a dual structure or the IGF, and WGs are linked, and parts > on one whole, of what IGF can be, moving on from where it is. I don't see > any other way it can change in any meaningful way. > > My two cents. Thanks > > Parminder > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Feb 27 08:04:59 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:04:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII In-Reply-To: <200802261013.m1QADNSf011613@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200802271305.m1RD55Wf032187@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Some very preliminary bullet points summarizing the Briefing with the CSTD Secretariat which took place yesterday: - The CSTD members will have two substantive documents on issues related to WSIS follow-up: 1. the normal report of the UN SG to the CSTD, consisting of a 17-page summary of reports from Action Line facilitators; 2. A WSIS 2008 Report, compiled by the CSTD Secretariat, consisting of a more elaborated description of recent developments and trends. A first preliminary outline of this second document might be circulated on that list next week, and the Secretariat insisted on its intention to welcome written input from CS entities and other actors. - The CSTD secretariat circulated a briefing note on the CSTD 11th Session containing a provisional program of work of the 11th session (to be circulated shortly). It would be completed by an annotated agenda. Comments and suggestions from civil society are welcome. - APC recalled the previous proposition of having a multi-stakeholder advisory group to help preparing the content of the CSTD sessions in advance, by providing advice to the CSTD Bureau and Secretariat when necessary. It was recognised that the inclusion of a civil society and a private sector liaison in the governmental e-list was a step ahead. The CSTD Secretariat asked for more details on the proposition of a multi-stakeholder group. - Some discussion took place on how to attract mobilization of CS and other actors around information society processes at the UN: the ideas of having a yearly Information Society Forum, as a shorter and more visible version of the current cluster of event, and of clustering Action Line facilitation meetings were evoked. It could also be explored whether the high level ministerial review of ECOSOC could focus in 2010 on issues related to the WSIS follow up. Anything I missed? More information on these points coming soon. Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mardi 26 février 2008 11:13 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Importance : Haute Dear all, This is to confirm the briefing meeting with the CTSD Secretariat taking place today between 2.00 pm and 3.00 pm. The venue will be in Room XXVII (first floor). [The room is sometimes hard to find: it is located in the same floor as the Serpentine bar. Take the corridor at the left of room XXVI, and then you’ll find room XVII.] Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : vendredi 22 février 2008 18:01 À : wsis at ngocongo.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing for CS with secretariat of the CSTD - 26 Feb. 2008 Dear all, This is to inform you that the CSTD Secretariat will arrange some time for a briefing with Civil Society on the preparations towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD, 26-30 May 2008). This briefing will take place, such as last year, during the lunchtime period of the IGF Preparatory meeting. Date: 26 February 2008 Time: 14:00-15:00 Venue: UN Palais des Nations, room number to be confirmed More information shortly. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : vendredi 15 février 2008 18:42 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD(26-30 May 2008) Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members’ listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: “Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment” - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: “Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research” More information coming soon. 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 -------------- 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 narten at us.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 08:47:58 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:47:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629920@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <33fe01c874ba$7237d5a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <200802262141.m1QLf0MU032756@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629920@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <200802271347.m1RDlwm1007291@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Milton, > > and > > from a public policy perspective, overwhelmingly negative. > That depends on the incidence of costs and benefits, i.e. the > distributional effects of the transition. Those distributional effects > are in turn functions of public policy. So one cannot make a categorical > statement that the policy effects are negative. Rather, one should say > that policy(ies) should be forged that maximize the benefits of the > transition and avoid costs and disruptions, but do not try to force > people into a transition that doesn't make economic or technical sense > for specific entities. I don't get this. What public policy needs forging here? The entire IPv6 deployment thing is playing out in the free market. Governments are playing a minor role. There is very little they can do to change the economic fundamentals. Especially given the decentralized and uregulated nature of the Internet. Again, the reason IPv6 has not been deployed is entirely economic. A week to non-existant business case. I don't see how public policy can change that much. (Or maybe I don't understand what "public policy" is supposed to mean in this context.) > To put it perhaps more simply deploying or not deploying v6 will be > strongly influenced by "public policy", and that means that RIRs and > ISPs will be policy makers. ISPs? Maybe. Truth be told, end users don't need ISPs to use IPv6. There are transition techniques for enabling IPv6 at end sites even if ISPs don't cooperate. One can simply tunnel over the local ISP. Microsoft Vista includes Teredo technology, which is specifically designed to do this. I point this out mainly to say that it is not a requirement that ISPs deploy this first. Bottom line: ISPs will deploy IPv6 when customers ask for it. But they won't deploy it in the absence of demand or a compelling business case. The profit margins in the ISP business are too thin for them to act otherwise. RIRs? They have already done the public policy part. They have an open PDP, and they have developed policies for giving out IPv6 address space. ISPs and end users can obtain address space. If there are issues with what they have done, this list is the wrong place for that discussion (if one actually wants to make changes). The debate about whether RIRs should do more to help get IPv6 deployed is not new and has been going on in the RIR community for years. Indeed, in response to such concerns, a number of the RIRs have reduced (or done away with) fees for IPv6 address space. Although it makes for a good sound bite, RIR policies are not a serious impediment to deploying IPv6. > It is possible to have policies that promote v6 deployment that have > overwhelmingly negative effects, and it is possible to have policies > that are designed to preserve the viabnility of v4 as long as > possible that might have good public interest effects. Sure, in theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it would be more helpful to point to specifics -- to highlight actual policies that are problematic, rather than implying there may be issues through general (but unsubstantiated) statements. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Wed Feb 27 08:48:37 2008 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:48:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] My notes - open consultations (Agenda item 1) Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing my personal notes from the Open Consultations. Only Agenda item 1 is here (I'm working on the rest). I hope this can be of use for some of you... and, if you would like to join this experiment, any of you can send me your suggestions to make it better. So if the map evolves I will be glad to share with you a revised file. Adam and Jeanette - as I told you in the cafeteria, I will wait for your comments!! I can also send the .mmap file (Mindjet Mindmanager) for those of you who also use this software. Best, Seiiti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open consultations 26 Feb 2008 Agenda item 1 draft01.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 625695 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 narten at us.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 09:19:02 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:19:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Milton, > The reason people use the "transition" term in connection with v4-v6 is > the possibility of address space exhaustion in the v4 space. Actually, the reason people use the term "transition" is because the IETF used those terms from the beginning. Even today, we have "transition" techniques. That is what they are called in the official standards, and those names have been picked up and carried through via vendor literature. In retropsect, a poor choice of terms, but there it is. "Transition" (when you talk to businesses) raises big alarm bells. Something close to panic, because their first reaction is "I have to turn off IPv4 and move to IPv6? No way!". They do not want to have to move from IPv4 (a business-critical infrastructure) to something new and unproven and (presumably) costly. Luckily, when one speaks to these same parties and explains that it's not really about transition (in a flag day sense), but about coexistance, the conversation immediately gets better. Also, we should be very careful about using the term "address exhaustion". There will be no IPv4 address exhaustion. We have some 4B IPv4 addresses, and they are not going to go away. :-) The correct term is "exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool". Perhaps caveated with "the IANA" or "the RIR" free pool. When the free pool is exhausted, people will still be able to obtain addresses. But the cost will go up, and there may be issues associated with those addresses (e.g., they may be private, rather than public, or they may belong to routing prefixes that cover few addresses, and thus may not actually be routable on the public Internet (meaning they are little better than private addresses), etc.) > Your comments below seem to imply a leisurely, choice-based > migration - which for some players may indeed be the case, but what > seems more likely is a game in which those who move to v6 first > create costs and burdens for themselves and so everyone has an > incentive to let others move first and stay in the v4 space as long > as possible. That is exactly the situation we have today. No one wants to go first, because the cost/benefit argument favors delay. > So, from my point of view the issue is not the abandonment of v4, but > getting stuck in it forever. We will only abandon IPv4 if the cost of maintaining it exceeds the cost of moving to IPv6. Different entities will see the costs/benefits (for them) differently. Some will find it beneficial to move, some will find it better to just stay with IPv4 as long as possible. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 27 10:26:24 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:26:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Hyderabad - presentation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The host country's presentation on Hyderabad and the meeting location is online, PDF and PPT Warning, files are large (over 15 MB.) Also full transcript of yesterday's proceeding also now available 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Feb 27 10:26:04 2008 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:26:04 -0000 Subject: [governance] Kuwait Information Technology Society intervention during the open consultation session in Geneva Message-ID: <200802271526.PAA01154@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear all: Find attached Kuwait Information Technology Society interventions during the open consultation session in Geneva held on 26/2/2008. Regards, Qusai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KITS comments on the Hayderabad meeting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 46136 bytes Desc: 34745264-KITS comments on the Hayderabad meeting.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KITS comments on MAG rotation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47721 bytes Desc: 4083280625-KITS comments on MAG rotation.pdf URL: From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Wed Feb 27 10:37:14 2008 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:37:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Kuwait Information Technology Society intervention during the open consultation session in Geneva In-Reply-To: <200802271526.PAA01154@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200802271526.PAA01154@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: Thank you Qusai! One suggestion to all who made interventions is to send a copy to igf at unog.ch and request for publishing in the IGF Web site Best S. On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Qusai Al-Shatti wrote: > Dear all: > Find attached Kuwait Information Technology Society interventions during > the open consultation session in Geneva held on 26/2/2008. > > Regards, > > Qusai > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- 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 Wed Feb 27 11:51:27 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:51:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC statement from 26 Feb Message-ID: <47C5B12F.19169.2052027@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all APC's input to the IGF consultation. It supplements the paper on access posted by Karen Banks and our post Rio statement from last November. Best 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 -------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: APC_IGF_statement_20080226.doc Date: 27 Feb 2008, 9:43 Size: 57344 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_IGF_statement_20080226.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 57344 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 27 11:49:58 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:49:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <131d01c878b9$a1ee48d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080227164958.GA19733@sources.org> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:07:20AM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 85 lines which said: > Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few > minutes via a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket > surgery involved. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but setting up a connection through a tunnel broker is a bit frightening, even for the experienced sysadmin. People can get a grasp at it by reading the instructions I've written for the Slicehost hoster (and remember most Slicehost users are developers and/or already knowledgeable in Unix and IP networks): http://forum.slicehost.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=1421 Also, once it works, things are not over. Tunnels break, strange MTU problems pop up, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 12:34:57 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:34:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080227164958.GA19733@sources.org> References: <131d01c878b9$a1ee48d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080227164958.GA19733@sources.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:07:20AM +0300, > McTim wrote > > a message of 85 lines which said: > > > Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few > > minutes via a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket > > surgery involved. > > Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but setting up a connection > through a tunnel broker is a bit frightening, even for the experienced > sysadmin. People can get a grasp at it by reading the instructions > I've written for the Slicehost hoster (and remember most Slicehost > users are developers and/or already knowledgeable in Unix and IP > networks): > > http://forum.slicehost.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=1421 That IS daunting. I set up a residential tunnel ~3 years ago via hexago, elapsed time ~10 minutes. It "broke" when i swapped mobo, but now I use sixxs.net as my tunnel broker, and it took ~ 20 mins. Much of the times given above were waiting for dloads. All on XP, no *Nix commands needed. Dead easy. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Feb 27 12:53:21 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD briefing note and provisional programme of work In-Reply-To: <200802271305.m1RD55Wf032187@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200802271752.m1RHqKaO021961@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the briefing note and provisional programme of work of the CSTD circulated during yesterday’s briefing. An annotated agenda might be circulated soon. According to this draft PoW, there might be between 2½ or 3 days devoted to WSIS follow up activities. As announced earlier today, it seems the CSTD Secretariat might be open for comments and suggestions regarding this timetable and the way the timetable is presented. Note that some written contributions received so far from international organisations and regional commissions are already posted on the CSTD-XI webpage: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942 &lang=1&m=15018 (click on “contributions”). Other written contributions, including from CS and other actors, will be added on that page. I forgot to mention my previous summary that two Rooms will be made available at the Palais des Nations during the CSTD session for lunchtime side events. Last year, the Global Information Society Watch 2007 Report was launched during such a side event. This possibility is continuing for the 2008 CSTD session. Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi, 27. février 2008 14:05 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : RE: [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Dear all, Some very preliminary bullet points summarizing the Briefing with the CSTD Secretariat which took place yesterday: - The CSTD members will have two substantive documents on issues related to WSIS follow-up: 1. the normal report of the UN SG to the CSTD, consisting of a 17-page summary of reports from Action Line facilitators; 2. A WSIS 2008 Report, compiled by the CSTD Secretariat, consisting of a more elaborated description of recent developments and trends. A first preliminary outline of this second document might be circulated on that list next week, and the Secretariat insisted on its intention to welcome written input from CS entities and other actors. - The CSTD secretariat circulated a briefing note on the CSTD 11th Session containing a provisional program of work of the 11th session (to be circulated shortly). It would be completed by an annotated agenda. Comments and suggestions from civil society are welcome. - APC recalled the previous proposition of having a multi-stakeholder advisory group to help preparing the content of the CSTD sessions in advance, by providing advice to the CSTD Bureau and Secretariat when necessary. It was recognised that the inclusion of a civil society and a private sector liaison in the governmental e-list was a step ahead. The CSTD Secretariat asked for more details on the proposition of a multi-stakeholder group. - Some discussion took place on how to attract mobilization of CS and other actors around information society processes at the UN: the ideas of having a yearly Information Society Forum, as a shorter and more visible version of the current cluster of event, and of clustering Action Line facilitation meetings were evoked. It could also be explored whether the high level ministerial review of ECOSOC could focus in 2010 on issues related to the WSIS follow up. Anything I missed? More information on these points coming soon. Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mardi 26 février 2008 11:13 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Importance : Haute Dear all, This is to confirm the briefing meeting with the CTSD Secretariat taking place today between 2.00 pm and 3.00 pm. The venue will be in Room XXVII (first floor). [The room is sometimes hard to find: it is located in the same floor as the Serpentine bar. Take the corridor at the left of room XXVI, and then you’ll find room XVII.] Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : vendredi 22 février 2008 18:01 À : wsis at ngocongo.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing for CS with secretariat of the CSTD - 26 Feb. 2008 Dear all, This is to inform you that the CSTD Secretariat will arrange some time for a briefing with Civil Society on the preparations towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD, 26-30 May 2008). This briefing will take place, such as last year, during the lunchtime period of the IGF Preparatory meeting. Date: 26 February 2008 Time: 14:00-15:00 Venue: UN Palais des Nations, room number to be confirmed More information shortly. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : vendredi 15 février 2008 18:42 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD(26-30 May 2008) Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members’ listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: “Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment” - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: “Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research” More information coming soon. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Briefing note CSTD 2008 final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 113152 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 27 15:50:05 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:50:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <200802270315.m1R3FQAP010726@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <268101c87982$5c983f10$8b00a8c0@IAN> OK, so I can get clear about where we are at. Thomas clarified (and Avri agreed) we won't get rid of NATs with IPv6. So the architecture remains IPv4+NATs+IPv6+IPv6NATS+dualstack. (that's not exactly what the founding fathers envisaged in the early 1990s when they began working on this...) The single solitary reason why we would introduce this architectural dilemma is to obtain a larger address pool, because the current one might on current usage patterns run out in a decade or so. Getting rid of the scourge of NATs, although it was originally a large part of the justification for IPv6, now has to be understood as an end to end pipe dream. Other important statements from Thomas in later messages include >When the free pool is exhausted, people will still be able to obtain >addresses >No one wants to go first, because the cost/benefit argument favors delay. >We will only abandon IPv4 if the cost of maintaining it exceeds the cost of >moving to IPv6. >The reason IPv6 has not been deployed is entirely economic. A week to non->existant business case. (All of which I agree with, except the latter. There are substantial technical issues in deployment currently as well) Irrespective, these factors suggest there will be extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, in rolling out IPv6. That's the reality we have to face. But - and this is a serious question - if we are retaining NATs anyway, and accept them as part of the architecture and use them efficiently, can't we solve the address problem without IPv6? Then there is mobility. Thomas wrote > > > Consider a cell phone with an IP address (the model of all future > > > devices...). Life sure would be a straightforward if "phone calls" > > > simply consisted of the caller being able to initiate a direct > > > connection to your cell phone. That simply doesn't work in a world > > > full of NATs. But as this discussion has continued, it seems that, NATs or not, IP won't handle this vision in its current state anyway? IPv6 may enable it by making more numbers available providing we can figure the rest out, but in the meantime if I move back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (as one might in a coexistence situation) isn't the situation vastly more complex than it is now for routing? Doesn't IPv4/Ipv6 co-existence make mobility more difficult? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] > Sent: 27 February 2008 14:15 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care > > "Ian Peter" writes: > > > My understanding is that the major deployment of NATs is with corporate > > networks and government networks. Am I right? > > Depends on how you count. In sheer numbers, it's probably home users. > > Probably 90+% of all home users are behind a NAT box. In the US > home/office market (characterized by cheap -- under $50 -- "routers") > they all perform NAT. Indeed, they are arguably not even proper > routers, because the NAT functionality is integral and *cannot* be > disabled. When I last looked (a few years back), I couldn't find an > off-the-shelf (cheap) router in which I could disable NAT. In talking > to others, this is the norm. > > Bottom line: everyone is using NATs. Home users, small businesses, and > major enterprises. > > > And isn't the capacity to ensure that you cannot make a direct > > connection from Internet to any one of hundreds of thousands of > > computers in corporate networks fundamental to network security as > > currently practiced? In other words, aren't they going to want to > > have NATs for network security, IPv6 or no IPv6? So won't NATs just > > live on? > > You just demonstrated how much of an uphill battle it will be to > change the NAT mindset. People have been sold on the idea that NATs > provide security (which has to be good, right?). And yes, they do. But > that is because they have a built-in firewall. It is the firewall that > provides the security. You don't need the NAT functionality to get the > security part... > > Well, it is also true that if you put your computer in a locked room > and make the doors one-way exits only, you also get security. And NATs > in a sense do that, because they only allow outgoing connections (by > design), so it's not really possible to allow inbound connections --- > whether hostile or friendly. > > With a proper firewall, you can configure the security. That is, you > can select wich incoming connections to allow (i.e., those from safe > protocols/applications), while disallowing others. You have a choice. > > With NAT, there is only one setting: disallow all incoming traffic. > > > > Consider a cell phone with an IP address (the model of all future > > > devices...). Life sure would be a straightforward if "phone calls" > > > simply consisted of the caller being able to initiate a direct > > > connection to your cell phone. That simply doesn't work in a world > > > full of NATs. > > > But does it work anyway within IPv6, which, like its predecessor, was > not > > designed for mobility? Isn't one of the unresolved technical issues with > > IPv6 mobility > > It is just as resolved (or unresolved) in IPv4 as in IPv6, in some > sense. So I am not sure what this means or if this is (again) supposed > to suggest that IPv6 is not yet finished and more needs to be done. > > IPv6 provides an enlarged address space. That is the key benefit. > > It doesn't solve a range of other problems that people wish it would > solve. > > > and multihoming? Doesn't multihoming mean that if I change away from > > my home base (as one tends to do with a mobile phone) the IPv6 > > address will have to change, i.e when a node changes its point of > > attachment to the Internet, its address becomes topologically > > incorrect? I understood that the change of the point of attachment > > is still problematic? > > Multhoming is just as problematic in IPv6 as it is in IPv4. In other > words, there is no magic solution here. People often wish IPv6 solved > this problem better than IPv4 does, but wishing doesn't make it so. > > One of the big frustrations with IPv6 for many is that it doesn't > solve a whole lot of problems that would have been nice to solve. But > it turns out that many of those problems are fundamentally hard to > solve, and its simply not as simple as saying "since we have to > upgrade to IPv6 anyway, let's fix a bunch of other things too". IPv6 > has "fixed" some of the easy things that we know how to fix. For the > more substantative problems (like multihoming or a better mobility) > people are still figuring out how best to solve those problems. > Solutions simply aren't on the table today. > > Thomas > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date: > 26/02/2008 09:08 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date: 26/02/2008 09:08 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 27 17:45:30 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:45:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: On 27 Feb 2008, at 15:19, Thomas Narten wrote: > Actually, the reason people use the term "transition" is because the > IETF used those terms from the beginning. Even today, we have > "transition" techniques. That is what they are called in the official > standards, and those names have been picked up and carried through via > vendor literature. In retropsect, a poor choice of terms, but there it > is. I remember as long ago as four years ago trying to get people to change to the language of co-existence. I do not believe it was just inertia that made that change impossible. Are you sure that there isn't still a strong component in the technical community that believes in the universal deployment of IPv6 and the withering of IPv4. Also while I admit I am only a tourist in IPv6 meetings and on IPv6 mailing lists, I must say I have seen few indications that we are tending toward an awareness of co-existence or that we working on genuine co-existence. In fact I am not sure I have seen the word co- existence used on a V6 mailing list since a few occasions back in 2005. I am not trying to bash the V6 people here, a lot of them are my friends. What concerns me is that I believe that most people who work on V6 are still working on the model of transition and are not really giving serious consideration to co-existence (or at least as a tourist in V6 land since 2004 I don't see it). While the work being done is technical isn't it a policy decision on the part of IESG and IAB to not have put a big push on getting us to think about the technical issues of co-existence (in the same way they put a big push on getting us to think about inter-domain routing problems)? 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 seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Thu Feb 28 03:32:46 2008 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:32:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] My notes - Open consultations item 2 Message-ID: Hi all, tks for your emails and support!! As promised, here goes the map of my personal notes for item 2 of the agenda - will send the map for item 4 separately. Your comments are welcome! S. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open consultations 26 Feb 2008 - Agenda item 2 draft01.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 319407 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 seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Thu Feb 28 03:42:52 2008 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:42:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] My notes - open consultations item 4 Message-ID: Hi, and here goes item 4 (did not make for item 3) Collaborative ideas on improving this way of sharing info are welcome. Such as sending me the links that I missed to the complete docs of your intervetions, pointing out some mistakes, etc... some DiploFoundation Alumni are also helping in copying-pasting the entire content of the transcrtips into a word document and highlighting interesting parts that should also be added - if you want to join this experiment, let me know. This is an experiment in collaboration for facilitating distributing the info to everyone - I remember someone said that the transcripts are sometimes difficult to consult, so why not try other approaches, huh? Sorry that my initial draft also has large chunks of text as I mostly copied-pasted instead of putting my own interpretation in trying to get a concise text - the original authors are better than me for that. So perhaps if you know the speakers you may be able to return with a shorter one-phrase format that would better fit into the mindmap. Feel free to distribute and if you want to modify/edit I can send you the source (.mmap) files. Oh, again - just to avoid confusion - I'm doing this in "my personal capacity" (love this expression). Have a great day S. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open consultations 26 Feb 2008 - Agenda item 4 draft01.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 746235 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 toml at communisphere.com Thu Feb 28 01:54:30 2008 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:54:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers Message-ID: 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 Feb 28 04:00:46 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:00:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <268101c87982$5c983f10$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <200802270315.m1R3FQAP010726@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <268101c87982$5c983f10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > OK, so I can get clear about where we are at. > > Thomas clarified (and Avri agreed) we won't get rid of NATs with IPv6. Not immediately, no, but in the long term, probably. So > the architecture remains IPv4+NATs+IPv6+IPv6NATS+dualstack. (that's not > exactly what the founding fathers envisaged in the early 1990s when they > began working on this...) > > The single solitary reason why we would introduce this architectural dilemma > is to obtain a larger address pool, No, that's just the immediate benefit. because the current one might on current > usage patterns run out in a decade or so. ~2 years, ~3 tops. Getting rid of the scourge of > NATs, although it was originally a large part of the justification for IPv6, > now has to be understood as an end to end pipe dream. > See now, NATs aren't a "scourge". Lots of folks like them, as they can be very useful. It's a holy war, one in which I am agnostic. > Other important statements from Thomas in later messages include > > >When the free pool is exhausted, people will still be able to obtain > >addresses > > >No one wants to go first, because the cost/benefit argument favors delay. > > >We will only abandon IPv4 if the cost of maintaining it exceeds the cost of > >moving to IPv6. > > > >The reason IPv6 has not been deployed is entirely economic. A week to > non->existant business case. > > (All of which I agree with, except the latter. There are substantial > technical issues in deployment currently as well) > While it's not "easy", it's certainly possible. Many many folk have done so. > Irrespective, these factors suggest there will be extreme difficulty, if not > impossibility, in rolling out IPv6. That's the reality we have to face. Again, it's not impossible. Many networks have done it. Maybe Adam can tell us more about the Japanese and Korean networks that have near ubiquitous IPv6 connectivity (for mobile devices as well). > > But - and this is a serious question - if we are retaining NATs anyway, and > accept them as part of the architecture and use them efficiently, can't we > solve the address problem without IPv6? > Maybe, in the short term, probably not for the long term. > Then there is mobility. Thomas wrote Let me go back to what you wrote before on mobility: >But does it work anyway within IPv6, which, like its >predecessor, was not >designed for mobility? IIUC, v6 WAS designed with mobility in mind. >Isn't one of the unresolved technical issues with >IPv6 mobility and multihoming? Yes. Doesn't multihoming mean that >if I change >away from my home base (as one tends to do with a mobile >phone) the IPv6 >address will have to change, i.e when a node changes its point >of attachment >to the Internet, its address becomes topologically incorrect? Multihoming is when a network has more than one link to the Internet. Usually, but not always using multiple links to a single IP address block. You can do it with a link load balancer, and a variety of other ways as well. What you are referring to seems to be IPv6 mobility, which you can easily Google for. > > > But as this discussion has continued, it seems that, NATs or not, IP won't > handle this vision in its current state anyway? IPv6 may enable it by making > more numbers available providing we can figure the rest out, but in the > meantime if I move back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (as one > might in a coexistence situation) isn't the situation vastly more complex > than it is now for routing? No. The networks are going to be routed, whether or not you are on them. Maybe I have missed your meaning? Doesn't IPv4/Ipv6 co-existence make mobility > more difficult? maybe, but not insoluble. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 04:27:52 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:27:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: Hi Avri, On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 27 Feb 2008, at 15:19, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > Actually, the reason people use the term "transition" is because the > > IETF used those terms from the beginning. Even today, we have > > "transition" techniques. That is what they are called in the official > > standards, and those names have been picked up and carried through via > > vendor literature. In retropsect, a poor choice of terms, but there it > > is. > > > I remember as long ago as four years ago trying to get people to > change to the language of co-existence. I do not believe it was just > inertia that made that change impossible. Are you sure that there > isn't still a strong component in the technical community that > believes in the universal deployment of IPv6 and the withering of > IPv4. I am sure that many (if not most) think that eventually v4 will be turned off. I certainly think that this is the case, not for a long time tho. I don't see a problem with that. Also while I admit I am only a tourist in IPv6 meetings and on > IPv6 mailing lists, I must say I have seen few indications that we are > tending toward an awareness of co-existence or that we working on > genuine co-existence. In fact I am not sure I have seen the word co- > existence used on a V6 mailing list since a few occasions back in 2005. The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why? > > I am not trying to bash the V6 people here, a lot of them are my > friends. What concerns me is that I believe that most people who work > on V6 are still working on the model of transition and are not really > giving serious consideration to co-existence (or at least as a tourist > in V6 land since 2004 I don't see it). While the work being done is > technical isn't it a policy decision on the part of IESG and IAB to > not have put a big push on getting us to think about the technical > issues of co-existence It seems to me that there IS a big push on, which is one of the reasons it has come up on this list. The NANOG/SANOG IPv6 hours are just the latest examples of this. I'm not sure that RFC3710 or the IAB charter allow for this kind of protocol marketing/pushing. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 28 08:02:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:32:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] network neutrality (was IGC statements) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9016297F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080228130227.0F845A6C13@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton > This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it > if you can. > > The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend > vertical control to content and applications. > > So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one > layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from > one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications. As you know I did make some changes in the doc, which now speaks about openness in all layers rather than net neutrality in all layers. However, as the topic 'network neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers' suggests, the idea is to look at the real underlying meaning and significance of neutrality or openness in all layers of the Internet. We may normally speak of 'the network' as the space in which data packets flow along with the data packets themselves... but if we mean by 'network' , the Internet itself, its layers and boundaries keep evolving and changing. And therefore certain 'bastardization' of terms may be necessary. For many the real or the most important aspect of the 'network' is already the way google organizes the information infrastructure (and not the packets space). With google buying up spectrum, global connectivity cables, putting massive captive computing and storage powers in all parts of the globe, monopolizes large parts of content (digitizing libraries on restrictive terms) etc, soon 'google' may be 'the network', if it is not already so... So coming back to the neutrality point, though the battles are most prominent today in the area of neutrality of the physical layer to content (yahoo etc) or applications (Skype), and google is the most prominent advocate of NN here, we already have problems of whether the search engines (application layer) should be neutral to content (searchable content). And here google looks more like the villain. It digitizes public library content but restricts its use by other search engines... (see http://www.macworld.com/article/60765/2007/10/libraries.html and http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/22334 ) It may be a bit adventurous to do so as this point, but I think neutrality of the application layer to content is at least as big a problem, and therefore possibly can be considered under a broader conception of 'network neutrality'. Or do we need some different term for this... This just came out of some internal discussions within ITfC on the issue of openness or what we also call as 'public-ness' of the Internet, which is why ITfC proposed this topic for a main session. The way existing openness main session was being organized at the IGF spread issues too thin, and did not deal with the real issues of the Internet in any meaningful manner. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:29 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements > > Hello, I have finally gotten a chance to review the statement. My vote > is YES, understanding that we have a binary option here. > > However, I note an error - not a wording problem or a shade of meaning I > don't like, but an outright, puzzling error -- in the language on net > neutrality (NN). The language in question says that the "challenges [of > NN] are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in > the content and application layers." > > This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it > if you can. > > The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend > vertical control to content and applications. > > So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one > layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from > one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications. > > And by the way, "content and applications" are not separate "layers;" > the application layer is a term that has meaning in the OSI framework; > content is something that applications act on. In discussing NN, I > suggest that we will do ourselves a favor if we abandon completely the > ersatz layering terminology that seems to have evolved as a bastardized > version of the OSI model. That's my pedantic 2cents for today. ;-) > > MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] IGC statements > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open > > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them. > > > > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements. > Added > > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as > > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's > suggestions) > > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. > > > > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if > > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps > in > > the > > process of calling a possible rough consensus. > > > > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be > exactly > > the > > statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you > accept > > that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be > made > > on the behalf of the group. > > > > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl > indicate > > your > > vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work > > being > > done. > > > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 28 15:25:37 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:25:37 +1100 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <384a01c87a48$1b206140$8b00a8c0@IAN> Meanwhile from an article by Loki Jorgensen I get the following table of implementation issues for IPv6 * Relatively easy o Implementing dual stacks in LAN and WAN o Enabling IPv6 in operating systems o Setting up essential IPv6 services, e.g. DNS, SMTP, NTP o Setting up IPv6 in certain key services such as HTTP * Moderately hard o Composing an effective address/domain deployment o Operating a dual stack network o Multicasting * Very difficult o Security infrastructure such as firewalls, proxies, VPNs, etc. o DHCP o Dealing with incomplete and broken implementations o Promoting adaptation at the social layer o Soliciting vendor 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 www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 28 February 2008 20:01 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Thomas Narten > Subject: Re: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > OK, so I can get clear about where we are at. > > > > Thomas clarified (and Avri agreed) we won't get rid of NATs with IPv6. > > Not immediately, no, but in the long term, probably. > > So > > the architecture remains IPv4+NATs+IPv6+IPv6NATS+dualstack. (that's not > > exactly what the founding fathers envisaged in the early 1990s when > they > > began working on this...) > > > > The single solitary reason why we would introduce this architectural > dilemma > > is to obtain a larger address pool, > > No, that's just the immediate benefit. > > because the current one might on current > > usage patterns run out in a decade or so. > > > ~2 years, ~3 tops. > > Getting rid of the scourge of > > NATs, although it was originally a large part of the justification for > IPv6, > > now has to be understood as an end to end pipe dream. > > > > See now, NATs aren't a "scourge". Lots of folks like them, as they can > be very useful. It's a holy war, one in which I am agnostic. > > > Other important statements from Thomas in later messages include > > > > >When the free pool is exhausted, people will still be able to obtain > > >addresses > > > > >No one wants to go first, because the cost/benefit argument favors > delay. > > > > >We will only abandon IPv4 if the cost of maintaining it exceeds the > cost of > > >moving to IPv6. > > > > > > >The reason IPv6 has not been deployed is entirely economic. A week to > > non->existant business case. > > > > (All of which I agree with, except the latter. There are substantial > > technical issues in deployment currently as well) > > > > While it's not "easy", it's certainly possible. Many many folk have done > so. > > > Irrespective, these factors suggest there will be extreme difficulty, > if not > > impossibility, in rolling out IPv6. That's the reality we have to face. > > Again, it's not impossible. Many networks have done it. Maybe Adam > can tell us more about the Japanese and Korean networks that have near > ubiquitous IPv6 connectivity (for mobile devices as well). > > > > > But - and this is a serious question - if we are retaining NATs anyway, > and > > accept them as part of the architecture and use them efficiently, can't > we > > solve the address problem without IPv6? > > > > Maybe, in the short term, probably not for the long term. > > > Then there is mobility. Thomas wrote > > > > Let me go back to what you wrote before on mobility: > > >But does it work anyway within IPv6, which, like its >predecessor, was > not > >designed for mobility? > > IIUC, v6 WAS designed with mobility in mind. > > > >Isn't one of the unresolved technical issues with > >IPv6 mobility and multihoming? > > Yes. > > Doesn't multihoming mean that >if I change > >away from my home base (as one tends to do with a mobile >phone) the IPv6 > >address will have to change, i.e when a node changes its point >of > attachment > >to the Internet, its address becomes topologically incorrect? > > Multihoming is when a network has more than one link to the Internet. > Usually, but not always using multiple links to a single IP address > block. You can do it with a link load balancer, and a variety of > other ways as well. > > What you are referring to seems to be IPv6 mobility, which you can > easily Google for. > > > > > > > > But as this discussion has continued, it seems that, NATs or not, IP > won't > > handle this vision in its current state anyway? IPv6 may enable it by > making > > more numbers available providing we can figure the rest out, but in the > > meantime if I move back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (as > one > > might in a coexistence situation) isn't the situation vastly more > complex > > than it is now for routing? > > No. The networks are going to be routed, whether or not you are on > them. Maybe I have missed your meaning? > > Doesn't IPv4/Ipv6 co-existence make mobility > > more difficult? > > maybe, but not insoluble. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1299 - Release Date: > 26/02/2008 09:08 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Feb 28 20:26:23 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:26:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care In-Reply-To: <384a01c87a48$1b206140$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <384a01c87a48$1b206140$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080229012623.GC471@hserus.net> Ian Peter [29/02/08 07:25 +1100]: > o DHCP Er. Why would dhcpv6 be classed as "very difficult"? And how old is this article? We offer dual stack v4 and v6, dhcp, over wifi at the apricot conference every year (www.apricot.net) - works just fine. Technology is out there. XP, Mac, Linux etc pick it up reasonably well. And nanog has other fun stuff like the "v6 hour" where v4 connectivity is turned off for an hour, leaving only v6 available. What breaks and what doesnt break gets tested out rather practically that way. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Feb 29 01:26:40 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:26:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: On 28 Feb 2008, at 10:27, McTim wrote: > > The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why? > > in which case we need to abandon all hope for co-existence and settle for parallel (ships in the night) existence. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 01:29:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:59:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> V6 and v4 can certainly reach each other .. > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:57 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > On 28 Feb 2008, at 10:27, McTim wrote: > > > > > The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why? > > > > > > > in which case we need to abandon all hope for co-existence and settle > for parallel (ships in the night) existence. > > 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 avri at psg.com Fri Feb 29 02:37:56 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:37:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> References: <20080220072743.10DA6E24C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629694@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47BDFF2C.6070103@wzb.eu> <200802261700.m1QH03vQ008563@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162991F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200802271419.m1REJ2B8020485@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> Message-ID: <1C6B9E58-CE50-40F7-BF79-75D7AC4C4371@psg.com> hi, yes, across yet another tunnel. ships in the night can reach other too. what the two IP networks can't do is share routes and all that comes with that. sometime i despair of the number of tunnels that now make up the non- connection oriented Internet, but that is another issue entirely. a. On 29 Feb 2008, at 07:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > V6 and v4 can certainly reach each other .. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:57 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format >> >> >> On 28 Feb 2008, at 10:27, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why? >>> >>> >> >> >> in which case we need to abandon all hope for co-existence and >> settle >> for parallel (ships in the night) existence. >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 29 03:34:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:04:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> Message-ID: <20080229083520.15FC767849@smtp1.electricembers.net> > V6 and v4 can certainly reach each other .. Izumi and Bertrand I think tried to figure out in this thread if they really can or they cant, and under want conditions they can and what are the costs and limitations of those 'conditions'. And if they cant reach each other, or can reach only in a very 'costly' way, why so, and why care wasn’t taken, or if it were ever possible to have done better in another reconfiguration, etc etc... I myself am interested to know all this. I cant speak for Izumi and Bertrand but I am still not clear at all. Apologies for my naiveté. Now, for easier understanding, can I put some questions, direct answers to which will perhaps help people who are interested in this from a policy point of view. (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. We know of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by the day. But almost always they are backward compatible. What is so unique about this set of applications that such compatibility was not possible? (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it in manner that it is not backward compatible. Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, or non-seamless-compatibility. Who evaluated it, and what were the principal criteria/ objectives/ values being followed for this evaluation? I know I am not the original person raising these questions, but still......And if answers to these are available in an accessible manner somewhere, pl point it to me. Thanks. I am rather concerned about the prognosis given by Karl of IPv6 leading to a lumpy Internet arranged around applications (a loose interpretation of what he wrote). I am already very apprehensive of this happening on its own without v6. So from a socio-political point of view it is important to know if v6 contributes to further moving of the Internet towards a commercial applications (controlled by big IT companies)centered Internet from a more open end-to-end common IP based one. Even if this shift is 'relative', it is of tremendous, in fact central, socio-political significance. It will determine the relatively 'open and public domain' versus 'marketplace controlled by big companies' nature of the Internet. I may just be being paranoid, but these thoughts come to my mind. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > V6 and v4 can certainly reach each other .. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:57 AM > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > > > > On 28 Feb 2008, at 10:27, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why? > > > > > > > > > > > > in which case we need to abandon all hope for co-existence and settle > > for parallel (ships in the night) existence. > > > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 29 03:37:31 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:37:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG - official Message-ID: Hi, Sorry for the lack of news from the MAG meeting -- hotel wifi access not working. Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. There will soon be an initial call for workshops, call for comments on a draft schedule (or schedules are we discussed a couple of examples) and call for names to rotate. More on this in a few days when the secretariat publish notes of the meeting (I am not sure I'd get everything 100% right or clear if I tried to explain now, and it's worth seeing the notes as a report of the meeting as a whole rather thank picking at bits.) I may be offline for a few days, work on UK and family to see. 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 04:01:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:01:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format Message-ID: <20080229090151.GA27845@hserus.net> Parminder [29/02/08 14:04 +0530]: >(1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. We know >of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by the day. But They are not applications. They are a transport fabric, an addressing mechanism. There just needs to be a sufficiency of 6 to 4 gateways (there are several) and these need to be configured. You can get tunneled access to v6 - yes. Or you can have providers offer native v6 connectivity for their mobile phones / dsl routers etc, and then provide 6 to 4 to reach v4 space. That will increase reachability and also encourage more people to roll out content (websites etc) on dual stack. v4 isnt going to go away, ever .. so these two might as well coexist. There's nothing "unique" about v6 barring all the marketing hype people keep pushing at it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 05:40:14 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:40:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG - official In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050802290240v7b8fe95cte32403e3082b2fc8@mail.gmail.com> Congratulations Adam and Everyone. Work well pursued, well deserved, well rewarded. And thanks too for the early post. Warm regards, LDMF Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* P.S. A news note on the U.N. itself going "virtual" and certainly with a 'multi-stakeholder' view, and including Internet Governance perspectives, a bit later. On 2/29/08, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi, > > Sorry for the lack of news from the MAG meeting -- hotel wifi access > not working. > > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. > > There will soon be an initial call for workshops, call for comments > on a draft schedule (or schedules are we discussed a couple of > examples) and call for names to rotate. More on this in a few days > when the secretariat publish notes of the meeting (I am not sure I'd > get everything 100% right or clear if I tried to explain now, and > it's worth seeing the notes as a report of the meeting as a whole > rather thank picking at bits.) > > I may be offline for a few days, work on UK and family to see. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- 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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Fri Feb 29 06:07:27 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:07:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG - official In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam congratulations and for everyone involved in this process warm regards Baudouin 2008/2/29, Adam Peake : > > Hi, > > Sorry for the lack of news from the MAG meeting -- hotel wifi access > not working. > > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. > > There will soon be an initial call for workshops, call for comments > on a draft schedule (or schedules are we discussed a couple of > examples) and call for names to rotate. More on this in a few days > when the secretariat publish notes of the meeting (I am not sure I'd > get everything 100% right or clear if I tried to explain now, and > it's worth seeing the notes as a report of the meeting as a whole > rather thank picking at bits.) > > I may be offline for a few days, work on UK and family to see. > > 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 > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 29 06:45:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:15:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] MAG - official In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080229114540.B3AC4A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. Thats good news. Comes exactly at the time as I was drafting an email for IGC's approval to be addressed to Nitin and Markus, requesting them to take note of our submission and to start using MAG in official usage . Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] MAG - official > > Hi, > > Sorry for the lack of news from the MAG meeting -- hotel wifi access > not working. > > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. > > There will soon be an initial call for workshops, call for comments > on a draft schedule (or schedules are we discussed a couple of > examples) and call for names to rotate. More on this in a few days > when the secretariat publish notes of the meeting (I am not sure I'd > get everything 100% right or clear if I tried to explain now, and > it's worth seeing the notes as a report of the meeting as a whole > rather thank picking at bits.) > > I may be offline for a few days, work on UK and family to see. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 29 07:04:39 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:34:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] MAG - official In-Reply-To: <20080229114540.B3AC4A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080229120449.45DC6A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net> I think change from AG to MAG is a significant gain. Names count for more than people often realize --- along the way when a creep sets in and there is an attempt to make the core IGF/ MAG more and more governmental - already more than half the members are from the government - this name can become an irritant for some, and the rallying point for others. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' > Subject: RE: [governance] MAG - official > > > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. > > Thats good news. Comes exactly at the time as I was drafting an email for > IGC's approval to be addressed to Nitin and Markus, requesting them to > take > note of our submission and to start using MAG in official usage . > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:08 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] MAG - official > > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the lack of news from the MAG meeting -- hotel wifi access > > not working. > > > > Good news, MAG is now official. The secretariat acknowledged the > > caucus' request to adopt the name "multi-stakeholder advisory group", > > supported its use and also pointed out that others had over the > > course of the MAG meeting increasingly picked up on the term. > > > > There will soon be an initial call for workshops, call for comments > > on a draft schedule (or schedules are we discussed a couple of > > examples) and call for names to rotate. More on this in a few days > > when the secretariat publish notes of the meeting (I am not sure I'd > > get everything 100% right or clear if I tried to explain now, and > > it's worth seeing the notes as a report of the meeting as a whole > > rather thank picking at bits.) > > > > I may be offline for a few days, work on UK and family to see. > > > > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Feb 29 08:13:46 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:13:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229083520.15FC767849@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> <20080229083520.15FC767849@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:51PM +0530, Parminder wrote a message of 102 lines which said: > (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not applications. > We know of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by > the day. But almost always they are backward compatible. What is so > unique about this set of applications that such compatibility was > not possible? Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very different from applications. When you say that an application is "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent by another host, but also to write to it. > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > in manner that it is not backward compatible. Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP address to every human being) to 2^128. > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > or non-seamless-compatibility. Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity). Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but that's all). > who evaluated it, IETF. In one way, every Internet actor who decides to support IPv6 or not does its own evaluation. > and what were the principal criteria/ objectives/ values being > followed for this evaluation? The main objective was to restore the end-to-end model, the very model that allows new applications to be developed. > So from a socio-political point of view it is important to know if > v6 contributes to further moving of the Internet towards a > commercial applications (controlled by big IT companies)centered > Internet from a more open end-to-end common IP based one. I hope so but be careful: the evolution of the Internet (corporation-controlled or open) depends mostly on socio-political factors, not on technical ones. IPv6 helps to keep an open model but that's all. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Feb 29 09:20:07 2008 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:20:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer Systems Message-ID: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> FYI, an important landmark ruling that created a new fundamental right related to computer privacy. Front page headlines all over the place in Germany. :-) See below for more details if you have not read about it yet, and also worth a look because a lot of the english press coverage got parts of it wrong. Best, Ralf Thursday, February 28, 2008 Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer Systems The German Constitutional Court on 27 February 2008 published a landmark ruling about the constitutionality of secret online searches of computers by government agencies. The decision constitutes a new "basic right to the confidentiality and integrity of information-technological systems" as derived from the German Constitution. The journalist and privacy activist Bettina Winsemann, the politician Fabian Brettel (Left Party), the lawyer and former federal minister for the interior Gerhart Baum (Liberal Party), and the lawyers Julius Reiter and Peter Schantz had challenged the constitutionality of a December 2006 amendmend to the law about the domestic intelligence service of the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia. The amendmend had introduced a right for the intelligence service to "covertly observe and otherwise reconnoitre the Internet, especially the covert participation in its communication devices and the search for these, as well as the clandestine access to information-technological systems among others by technical means" (paragraph 5, number 11). Parts of the challenges also addressed other amendmends which are not covered here. The decision of today is widely considered a landmark ruling, because it constitutes a new "basic right to the confidentiality and integrity of information-technological systems" as part of the general personality rights in the German constitution. The reasoning goes: "From the relevance of the use of information-technological systems for the expression of personality (Persönlichkeitsentfaltung) and from the dangers for personality that are connected to this use follows a need for protection that is significant for basic rights. The individual is depending upon the state respecting the justifiable expectations for the integrity and confidentiality of such systems with a view to the unrestricted expression of personality." (margin number 181) The decision complements earlier landmark privacy rulings by the Constitutional Court that had introduced the "right to informational self-determination" (1983) and the right to the "absolute protection of the core area of the private conduct of life" (2004). Information-technical systems that are protected under the new basic right are all systems that "alone or in their technical interconnectedness can contain personal data of the affected person in a scope and multiplicity such that access to the system makes it possible to get insight into relevant parts of the conduct of life of a person or even gather a meaningful picture of the personality." (margin number 203) This includes laptops, PDAs and mobile phones. The decision also gives very strict exceptions for breaking this basic right. Only if there are "factual indications for a concrete danger" in a specific case for the life, body and freedom of persons or for the foundations of the state or the existence of humans, government agencies may use these measures after approval by a judge. They do not, however, need a sufficient probability that the danger will materialize in the near future. Online searches can therefore not be used for normal criminal investigations or general intelligence work. If these rare conditions are met, secret online searches may only be used if there are steps taken to protect the core area of the private conduct of life, which includes communication and information about inner feelings or deep relationships. These protections have to include technical measures that aim at avoiding the collection of data from this core area. The Court goes on: "If there are concrete indications in the specific case that a certain measure for gathering data will touch the core area of the conduct of private life, it has to remain principally undone." (margin number 281) If data from this core area is accidentially collected, it must be deleted immediately and can not be used or forwarded in any case. Reactions to the decision were mixed. The opposition parties and many civil liberties groups acclaimed the birth of the new basic right with constitutional status and the high hurdles for any future use of governmental spyware. Others, among them many bloggers, were sceptical about the exception clauses and how far they can be stretched by the government in future legislation and practice. Secret online searches of personal hard drives and other storage media had been subject to intense political debate in Germany over the last year after the federal government had to admit it had already tried online searches for criminal investigations without legal grounds and was stopped by the Federal High Court. The federal government as well as several states plan to enact similar possibilities for their intelligence and law enforcement agencies, while the opposition parties and parts of the ruling Social Democrats are strictly against it. Privacy activists have called the plan "Federal Trojan" ("Bundestrojaner"). A real-life sized model of a trojan horse in Germany's national colors which was built by activists from the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) and used at several protest marches will soon be exhibited in the Museum of German History in Bonn. The "Federal Trojan" in front of the Constitutional Court during its hearing on the case on 10 October 2007. Picture by Leralle, licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0 Germany. Federal Minister for the Interior Wolfgang Schäuble (Christian Democrats) said he expects that the coalition will soon agree on a bill to give the Federal Criminal Agency (BKA) the legal possibility to use online searches in the fight against international terrorism. Privacy advocates pointed out that Schäuble now at least has to stick to a very narrow definition of fighting terrorist dangers and can not use this as a disguise for introducing general and far-reaching surveillance of personal computer systems. Links: * Constitutional Court Press Release (in German, 27.02.2008) * Constitutional Court Decision (BVerfG, 1 BvR 370/07) (in German, 27.02.2008) * Video from the announcing of the decision * Comprehensive press and background coverage (in German) * Deutsche Welle: Germany's Highest Court Restricts Internet Surveillance (27.02.2008) This article also appeared in the "EDRI-gram" newsletter by European Digital Rights (EDRi), number 6.4, 27 February 2008. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 09:29:04 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:29:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> References: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> <20080229083520.15FC767849@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20080229142904.GA19108@hserus.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer [29/02/08 14:13 +0100]: >> (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. > >No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks >(an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web >browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not >applications. Strongly agree. Parminder, it would be wise if some key civ soc people got a quick crash course in technical matters like this, especially where they're concerned with governance of these issues. I would be glad to help develop / teach such a course. Without it, a lot of civ soc commentary about these issues may not be as useful as it should be. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 09:35:59 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:35:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer In-Reply-To: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> Ralf Bendrath [29/02/08 15:20 +0100]: > FYI, an important landmark ruling that created a new fundamental right > related to computer privacy. Front page headlines all over the place in > Germany. :-) It is a crying shame that the privacy and law enforcement groups are at loggerheads to this extent in Germany. Several previous judgements, such as the 2005 Holger Voss case forbidding ISPs to log data about their customers except for billing purposes (and by extension not at all for fixed rate internet connections) tends to hamstring ISPs looking to trace actual abusers on their systems - spam, ddos attacks, etc. If I had a dollar for every time I had autoreplies from German ISPs to say "contact your law enforcement, they will contact our LE, who will contact us and we will start to log data on this case" - by which time of course, whatever source of abuse is long gone, or the ddos or whatever issue exists is well past being a minor threat, I would probably retire rich. Privacy and security have to coexist. And a lot of law enforcement work actually targets real malefactors, and logging + the backing of a good privacy framework and a system to issue (and in some case, expedite) warrants, is essential. The EU article 29 working party, and a lot of these german court decisions fly in the face of the reality ISPs, and law enforcement personnel, have to work with .. the reality that while absolute privacy and anonymity is something to be valued, there are far more malefactors abusing this than (say) political dissidents etc actually using it to its max [and backing it with strong cryptography]. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Feb 29 10:02:38 2008 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:02:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer In-Reply-To: <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> References: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47C81E8E.3090803@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Suresh Ramasubramanian schrieb: > Ralf Bendrath [29/02/08 15:20 +0100]: >> FYI, an important landmark ruling that created a new fundamental >> right related to computer privacy. Front page headlines all over the >> place in Germany. :-) > > It is a crying shame that the privacy and law enforcement groups are at > loggerheads to this extent in Germany. I am afraid this is a natural conflict that is pretty well known in many countries. Since 2001, the law enforcement people have gained more and more intrusive competences. I think it is just fair that this time, the privacy groups have won. BTW: The recent decision protects us from covert searches of our entire hard drives. Now that is a different dimension than logging IP numbers; I guess we can agree on that. > Several previous judgements, such as the 2005 Holger Voss case > forbidding ISPs to log data about their customers except for billing > purposes (and by extension not at all for fixed rate internet > connections) tends to hamstring ISPs looking to trace actual abusers on > their systems - spam, ddos attacks, etc. AFAIK there are a lot of ISPs here who do pretty well without logging personal data. > If I had a dollar for every time I had autoreplies from German ISPs to > say "contact your law enforcement, they will contact our LE, who will > contact us and we will start to log data on this case" This is a perfect legal procedure that protects the rights of individuals. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I guess you can at least partially blame it on the content industry which really got on the ISP's nerves with gazillions of requests for logfile data. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 10:22:41 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:22:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer In-Reply-To: <47C81E8E.3090803@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> <47C81E8E.3090803@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20080229152241.GA22246@hserus.net> Ralf Bendrath [29/02/08 16:02 +0100]: > I am afraid this is a natural conflict that is pretty well known in many > countries. Since 2001, the law enforcement people have gained more and more > intrusive competences. I think it is just fair that this time, the privacy Actually, Germany is about the one place where I have seen the conflict this pronounced, with parties almost actively hostile, and even invoking memories of the old Nazi days. Covert searches have their place - but never, ever warrantless. I hope we agree on that. With sufficient oversight mechanism, and a warrant and proper procedures followed, yes, wiretaps are sometimes essential in police work. > AFAIK there are a lot of ISPs here who do pretty well without logging > personal data. You think? Most german ISPs are shying away from basic best practices such as port 25 management + walled gardens to isolate malware / abusive traffic emitting users (please see http://www.maawg.org -> published documents for the managing port 25 and walled garden papers, and the ISP best practices) because their impression is that this is illegal. And I've had autoreplies such as those I described in my previous email from various German ISPs before. In situations that are very frustrating as it means that actual abusers go scot free. > This is a perfect legal procedure that protects the rights of individuals. > Sorry for the inconvenience, but I guess you can at least partially blame > it on the content industry which really got on the ISP's nerves with > gazillions of requests for logfile data. DMCA requests? We have a short way with those here. Charge enough compliance costs and let only genuine requests in due form filter through. Sorry if I was not perfectly clear but my comments were in the context of requests from civil or criminal enforcement agencies, not from recording / software industry law firms. And in requests for assistance between ISPs to mitigate actual network security and abuse issues. That's an entirely different ball game and needs to be handled without the current highly adversarial and hostile attitude that I have seen (more than one civil society representative - not you personally - has even invoked nazi imagery there, which would probably count as a Godwin was it a discussion on usenet, but serves to pour petrol on an already overheated discussion) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 10:55:31 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:55:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <008501c87a9c$7e91cb70$7bb56250$@net> <20080229083520.15FC767849@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229142904.GA19108@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080229155531.GA22944@hserus.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer [29/02/08 14:13 +0100]: >> >No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks >> >(an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web Here, for example, is a note on the "v6 hour" at nanog and apricot that I mentioned earlier. http://www.circleid.com/posts/82283_ipv6_hour_ipv4_switched_off/ IPv6 Hour. One, Two, Three, IPv4 Switched Off! Feb 29, 2008 3:45 AM IST | Comments: 0 By Yves Poppe It happened in San Jose, it happened in Taiwan and soon it will happen in Philadelphia! A nightmare? A conspiracy? No, no, it was just the IPv6 hour. One hour of pure IPv6 LAN for NANOG attendees with a NAT-PT as valve to the crowded teeming world of the IPv4 internet. IPv6 only on the inside, dual stack to the outside world. At 12 noon, Tuesday February 19th it happened! While Mac, Vista, Linux and Unix can breathe AAAA, Windows XP however cannot do DNS over IPv6 transport. What to do to avoid all these Windows XP users, including my colleague Sylvie Laperri�re, crowding the audience, scoffing at the state of IPv6 readiness? Some clever gymnastics with a little DNS hack synthesizing AAAA out of A records was supposed to provide them uninterrupted connectivity to the outside world. So what happened? The number of associations (users on the local network) peaked at 175 which is not bad. When Merike Kaeo who chaired the session asked the audience how many of them still had IPv4 access, about 60-70% raised their hand. Teething problems were to be expected, but such real life experiments remain the best environment to probe skill levels and stimulate ingenuity. On February 27th, the Apricot conference in Taiwan saw its IPv6 hour and by the time of the upcoming IETF in Philadelphia this March, it might already be close to routine and not too newsworthy anymore. Although NAT-PT remains after all a NAT, destroyer of the internet end to end principle, the initiative should be applauded. IPv6 only network bubbles can grow without too much trouble and still have an interface to the .old internet., QED. Would be address sharks, salivating with visions of reselling hoarded or traded IPv4 blocks at outrageous prices to desperate customers suffocating for lack of routable addresses should pause. Predatory pricing would simply accelerate the growth of IPv6 bubbles and the ultimate demise of IPv4. Taking a global perspective, one can only assume that major networks in countries such as China or India would resist being milked this way. An IPv6 only China interfacing to the .old. internet? That would be a quite sizeable bubble indeed. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in these articles are solely those of the author and are not in any way attributable to nor reflect any existing or planned official policy or position of his employer in respect thereto. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Feb 29 11:57:34 2008 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:57:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer In-Reply-To: <20080229152241.GA22246@hserus.net> References: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> <47C81E8E.3090803@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229152241.GA22246@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47C8397E.5030706@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Suresh Ramasubramanian schrieb: > Covert searches have their place - but never, ever warrantless. I hope > we agree on that. With sufficient oversight mechanism, and a warrant > and proper procedures followed, yes, wiretaps are sometimes essential > in police work. Searching the whole hard drive is much more intrusive than tapping into a conversation, because it reveals a hell of alot more. That's why the court made itself tso clear. >> blame it on the content industry which really got on >> the ISP's nerves with gazillions of requests for logfile data. > > DMCA requests? We have a short way with those here. Charge enough > compliance costs and let only genuine requests in due form filter > through. > > Sorry if I was not perfectly clear but my comments were in the context > of requests from civil or criminal enforcement agencies, not from > recording / software industry law firms. Yes, the content industry here has to go through the law enforcement agencies, because there is no legal way to get direct requests by private parties answered. Some attourneys are already so annoyed, too, that they have started to just dismiss these requests by saying "there is no public interest in investigating such minor copyright infringements". > And in requests for assistance > between ISPs to mitigate actual network security and abuse issues. Ok, that's a different thing. I am not familiar with these types of requests, but I guess it's the same legal problem the content industry has. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 12:04:54 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:34:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Germany: New Basic Right to Privacy of Computer Systems In-Reply-To: <47C8397E.5030706@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <47C81497.7040809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229143559.GB19108@hserus.net> <47C81E8E.3090803@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20080229152241.GA22246@hserus.net> <47C8397E.5030706@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <004901c87af5$3614ad00$a23e0700$@net> The problem with this kind of legislation though is that it is contentious - and it is part of the escalating conflict that I noted in my previous emails. > Ok, that's a different thing. I am not familiar with these types of > requests, but I guess it's the same legal problem the content industry > has. Perhaps not. But it is a sight more relevant when it means users having their ID stolen, websites having their internet access disrupted etc. Certainly more relevant than pimply teenagers downloading bad songs over the net and taking all that money out of Britney spears' mouth, poor girl.. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Fri Feb 29 12:36:11 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:36:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Message-ID: <298588F7-78BA-4AAC-ACAB-38D1E958F8F9@ipjustice.org> Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary. 28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.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 Fri Feb 29 13:05:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:35:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks Stephane. That was helpful. I know I may be testing your patience, but can I still seek some further clarifications. > No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks > (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web > browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not > applications. I understand that every discipline has its terms with clear associated meanings which shd normally not be messed with. I am just using this term 'application' loosely to understand the basic issue(s) I raised, and before me Izumi and Bertrand raised. With protocols I understand a logical category, a set of rules. I was trying to use the term 'application' for a working Internet system employing these protocols or rules. I could not think of any other term to describe it. You say " But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > by another host, but also to write to it." Here you seem to have gone beyond a set of rules, but are speaking of a working system, right. Who reads, and who writes....I meant to speak about this working system, and I felt odd to call a working system as a protocol (though it works employing a protocol), though I may be wrong. I spoke of the whole working network itself as a giant application merely to understand what compatibility with a new system with a different protocol may mean. So, pl excuse my excursion. It is entirely a temporary construction to try and understand a phenomenon, which to me is still not understandable. > Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very > different from applications. When you say that an application is > "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data > files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > by another host, but also to write to it. To take the example of the most famous or infamous software, Microsoft OS and office suites, they both read old data files (of older versions) as well are able to write to them..... so, I really didn't understand how it is a different with a 'protocol'. > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP > address to every human being) to 2^128 I know the basic logic of moving to ipv6. My question was different - what gain was obtained in making this protocol 'in a manner that' did not make it seamless backward compatible. Or was that the only possibility. > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we > sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity). Again, I understand the gains (or inversely, losses). Do you mean to say that the only way to make these gains - move to a bigger address space and other benefits - was to make a non-seamlessly-backward-compatible protocol. That is my question. > Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the > compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but > that's all). Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible? Was it a mistake on part of the technical community doing this work? Would they have done differently if they were politically differently inclined, meaning had different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/ constraints (I know that this is the tough question, but a very important one. Connects the technical domain to the socio-political) Sorry for asking so many questions. Hope I am not getting on the nerves of all the technical experts here. Thanks Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:44 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:51PM +0530, > Parminder wrote > a message of 102 lines which said: > > > (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. > > No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks > (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web > browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not > applications. > > > We know of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by > > the day. But almost always they are backward compatible. What is so > > unique about this set of applications that such compatibility was > > not possible? > > Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very > different from applications. When you say that an application is > "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data > files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > by another host, but also to write to it. > > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP > address to every human being) to 2^128. > > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we > sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity). > > Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the > compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but > that's all). > > > who evaluated it, > > IETF. In one way, every Internet actor who decides to support IPv6 or > not does its own evaluation. > > > and what were the principal criteria/ objectives/ values being > > followed for this evaluation? > > The main objective was to restore the end-to-end model, the very model > that allows new applications to be developed. > > > So from a socio-political point of view it is important to know if > > v6 contributes to further moving of the Internet towards a > > commercial applications (controlled by big IT companies)centered > > Internet from a more open end-to-end common IP based one. > > I hope so but be careful: the evolution of the Internet > (corporation-controlled or open) depends mostly on socio-political > factors, not on technical ones. IPv6 helps to keep an open model but > that's all. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 acm.org Fri Feb 29 14:57:27 2008 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:57:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG summary report Message-ID: <10E40421-5D79-449B-B160-0ACEAB6809F2@acm.org> Can be found at: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf 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 Feb 29 15:39:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 07:39:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <298588F7-78BA-4AAC-ACAB-38D1E958F8F9@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> The most telling point here appears to be >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: HYPERLINK "http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf"ht tp://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: HYPERLINK "http://www.ipjustice.org"http://www.ipjustice.org e: HYPERLINK "mailto:robin at ipjustice.org"robin at ipjustice.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 -------------- 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 iza at anr.org Fri Feb 29 19:16:31 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:16:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Thank you all for the very rich dialogue so far. I think these exchanges of information or questions and answers indicate that there is a good need for a kind of "Dummy's Guide to IPv4 and v6" or FAQ, something like that. Even among the technically knowledgeable people, there seem to be difference in opinion, such as the use of NAT/NAPT etc. which is of course natural. What is clear to techie people is not always clear to the rest of the population who are very much the users of the Internet. It is often presented as if the people like me who does not have good knowledge are "inferior" to those knowledgeables, but I don't agree with that model. In any case, unless these issues are well explained in layman's language, it is hard to come up with sound socio-policy decisions I believe, which is in the end our goal of "Internet Governance" isn't it? For that reason I think these exchange of information are really valuable and hope to continue if this constructive manner. The Study Group convened by the Japanese MIC (Ministry of Communication) will publish its final report this month, and I will try to share at least the summary as soon as possible. izumi 2008/3/1, Parminder : > > > Thanks Stephane. That was helpful. > > I know I may be testing your patience, but can I still seek some further > clarifications. > > > > No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks > > (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web > > browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not > > applications. > > > I understand that every discipline has its terms with clear associated > meanings which shd normally not be messed with. I am just using this term > 'application' loosely to understand the basic issue(s) I raised, and before > me Izumi and Bertrand raised. > > With protocols I understand a logical category, a set of rules. I was trying > to use the term 'application' for a working Internet system employing these > protocols or rules. I could not think of any other term to describe it. You > say " But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > > by another host, but also to write to it." Here you seem to have gone > beyond a set of rules, but are speaking of a working system, right. Who > reads, and who writes....I meant to speak about this working system, and I > felt odd to call a working system as a protocol (though it works employing a > protocol), though I may be wrong. I spoke of the whole working network > itself as a giant application merely to understand what compatibility with a > new system with a different protocol may mean. So, pl excuse my excursion. > It is entirely a temporary construction to try and understand a phenomenon, > which to me is still not understandable. > > > > Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very > > different from applications. When you say that an application is > > "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data > > files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > > by another host, but also to write to it. > > > To take the example of the most famous or infamous software, Microsoft OS > and office suites, they both read old data files (of older versions) as well > are able to write to them..... so, I really didn't understand how it is a > different with a 'protocol'. > > > > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. > > > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP > > address to every human being) to 2^128 > > > I know the basic logic of moving to ipv6. My question was different - what > gain was obtained in making this protocol 'in a manner that' did not make it > seamless backward compatible. Or was that the only possibility. > > > > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > > > Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we > > sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity). > > > Again, I understand the gains (or inversely, losses). Do you mean to say > that the only way to make these gains - move to a bigger address space and > other benefits - was to make a non-seamlessly-backward-compatible protocol. > That is my question. > > > > Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the > > compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but > > that's all). > > > Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible? > Was it a mistake on part of the technical community doing this work? Would > they have done differently if they were politically differently inclined, > meaning had different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/ > constraints (I know that this is the tough question, but a very important > one. Connects the technical domain to the socio-political) > > Sorry for asking so many questions. Hope I am not getting on the nerves of > all the technical experts here. Thanks > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:44 PM > > To: Parminder > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:51PM +0530, > > Parminder wrote > > a message of 102 lines which said: > > > > > (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs. > > > > No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks > > (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web > > browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not > > applications. > > > > > We know of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by > > > the day. But almost always they are backward compatible. What is so > > > unique about this set of applications that such compatibility was > > > not possible? > > > > Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very > > different from applications. When you say that an application is > > "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data > > files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent > > by another host, but also to write to it. > > > > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. > > > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP > > address to every human being) to 2^128. > > > > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > > > Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we > > sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity). > > > > Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the > > compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but > > that's all). > > > > > who evaluated it, > > > > IETF. In one way, every Internet actor who decides to support IPv6 or > > not does its own evaluation. > > > > > and what were the principal criteria/ objectives/ values being > > > followed for this evaluation? > > > > The main objective was to restore the end-to-end model, the very model > > that allows new applications to be developed. > > > > > So from a socio-political point of view it is important to know if > > > v6 contributes to further moving of the Internet towards a > > > commercial applications (controlled by big IT companies)centered > > > Internet from a more open end-to-end common IP based one. > > > > I hope so but be careful: the evolution of the Internet > > (corporation-controlled or open) depends mostly on socio-political > > factors, not on technical ones. IPv6 helps to keep an open model but > > that's all. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 19:57:19 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:57:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080301005719.GB5194@hserus.net> Izumi AIZU [01/03/08 09:16 +0900]: >who are very much the users of the Internet. It is often presented as if >the people like me who does not have good knowledge are "inferior" to those >knowledgeables, but I don't agree with that model. It is not a question of inferiority. But if people claim to be stakeholders and step forward to take an active stake in something, it is really essential that they have at least a basic (or rather more than basic) technical awareness. Let's put it this way. If you were to become a VP in Ford or Toyota, yes, you could be a good business person and be hired for that. But if you actually knew the auto industry, and knew what your engineering and manufacturing people were telling you, that'd be a definite asset to you in your role. Once such a guide is set up, a few regular places that civ soc meets at can be reached out to (by isoc, diplo or other groups that offer to take this developed course and move it forward) suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 29 20:02:09 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:02:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080301005719.GB5194@hserus.net> References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080301005719.GB5194@hserus.net> Message-ID: Though I agree mostly with what you wrote below per se, same thing should apply to those technical people - if they like to be involved with social policy and governance issues, they need to know some basics of policy process and especially here, civil society values etc. I hope these are always reciprocal or "equal" each other. AND, I hope one side will provide basics to the other, not expecting others to study as an "obligation". Though I don't like to put too much division between the "two" as a dichotomy, and like to see them come together to make things more productive izumi 2008/3/1, Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Izumi AIZU [01/03/08 09:16 +0900]: > > >who are very much the users of the Internet. It is often presented as if > >the people like me who does not have good knowledge are "inferior" to those > >knowledgeables, but I don't agree with that model. > > > It is not a question of inferiority. But if people claim to be stakeholders > and step forward to take an active stake in something, it is really > essential that they have at least a basic (or rather more than basic) > technical awareness. > > Let's put it this way. If you were to become a VP in Ford or Toyota, yes, > you could be a good business person and be hired for that. But if you > actually knew the auto industry, and knew what your engineering and > manufacturing people were telling you, that'd be a definite asset to you in > your role. > > Once such a guide is set up, a few regular places that civ soc meets at can > be reached out to (by isoc, diplo or other groups that offer to take this > developed course and move it forward) > > > suresh > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Fri Feb 29 20:07:58 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:07:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <02C20A9F-E414-4778-917D-E18032098AA3@ipjustice.org> This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non- host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this. Thanks, Robin On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > The most telling point here appears to be > > > > >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the > MAG, of 50% of its members > > >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would > be maintained. > > > > > > Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really > multistakeholder? > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; > Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy- > coalition at lists.apc.org > Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in > Geneva this week is on the IGF website: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary. > 28.02.2008.v1.pdf > > > > Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. > > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: > 28/02/2008 12:14 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: > 29/02/2008 08:18 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Feb 29 20:16:05 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:16:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080301005719.GB5194@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080301011605.GD5194@hserus.net> Izumi san, yes - I see a reasonable cross section of both communities here (and yes, I will still hold to a separate "technical community" here) - and both these have people with more than a passing familiarity with the other side of things (tech v/s policy) So lets get together to design a joint course that tries to bridge the gap between these two. And identify places where these values cause conflict with technical ideas and why (are the values not really practical? or is misunderstanding of the tech, or the values, causing friction?) Study as an obligation is something I gave up several years ago after I wrote the last exam I needed to pass for marks / grades. So I am not insisting on this as a sort of basic qualification, an internet governance drivers license etc. This is simply the best way forward to bridge the knowledge gap that's formed here, and that is drastically reducing the value that both sides bring to the table. And it is a course that needs to be given very broad exposure. suresh Izumi AIZU [01/03/08 10:02 +0900]: >Though I agree mostly with what you wrote below per se, same thing >should apply to those technical people - if they like to be involved >with social policy and governance issues, they need to know >some basics of policy process and especially here, civil society values >etc. I hope these are always reciprocal or "equal" each other. > >AND, I hope one side will provide basics to the other, not >expecting others to study as an "obligation". Though I don't like >to put too much division between the "two" as a dichotomy, >and like to see them come together to make things more productive > >izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance