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). >