From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 31 20:49:16 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:49:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What's in a domain name? Serious money Message-ID: 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 - LOS ANGELES: Xavier Buck planned to spend $100,000 last week to bid for domain names, those parcels of virtual Internet real estate, at a live auction in Los Angeles. He blew past his limit in less than an hour. By the time the three-hour auction had ended, Buck, chief executive of the Luxembourg-based company EuroDNS, had spent $150,000 for 15 appealingly generic names, including 7th.com, chaptereleven.com, microfinancing.com and computersystems.com. "These names will pay for themselves within two years," Buck said, as he sat in the ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel with a business partner who wore a matching gray suit. "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. The industry's fundamental assertion - that Web names can be valuable, cash-generating assets just like stocks, bonds or property - appears to be gaining a broader acceptance that veteran domainers are not accustomed to and may not be totally comfortable with. Buck and other domainers profit when unsavvy Internet users type those names into their Web browsers and then click on related advertisements. In the longer term, they hope to resell their domain names for large profits to companies that want to build real businesses at those Web addresses. Domainers have generally had a negative reputation. Domain-name trading takes little of the actual effort needed to build businesses on the Web, instead relying on clicks from people who are too unsophisticated or too lazy to use a search engine. In its early years, the industry was dominated by offshore players and secretive, if not illegal, tactics. But increasingly, there is serious money at stake. Last year, 106 domain names sold for more than $100,000, including porn.com, which went for nearly $9.5 million. In 2006, only 70 domain names sold for more than six figures. Millions of generic domain names, pointing to sites with little more than automated Google or Yahoo text ads, brought in untold more millions of dollars. 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. "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." 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. Last September, NameMedia, a company based in Waltham, Massachusetts, that has another huge portfolio of generic domain names, filed to go public on the Nasdaq stock market. "This industry could probably be an oasis, in the grand scheme of things, relative to the rest of the economy," said David Liu, managing director at Jefferies Broadview, one of the firms underwriting the offering. The domainers have their own trade group in Washington, albeit with only one full-time employee. They also have financiers who will lend money and accept domain names as collateral. "The industry was very secretive for a long time," said Frank Schilling, an industry pioneer who hit it big with bare-bones Web destinations like drugproblem.com and diamondweddingrings.com. "When you make millions at home in your underwear, you are not telling a soul about it," he said. Schilling traveled from his home on Grand Cayman Island to speak at a conference called DomainFest last week, sponsored by Oversee.net, on his private Gulfstream IV jet, with a leisurely stop in Las Vegas. But like other veterans, Schilling does not appear to be completely enthused with the industry's new direction. "These shows let everyone know how good it is and now the sniff is out," he said. "The wildcatting days are over. I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss them." The industry's transition to respect and professionalism might not be entirely complete. One strategy that has cast a stigma over the industry is called typo-squatting - registering domain names with variations and misspellings of major brand names, in the hopes that Web users will inadvertently stumble upon the sites. It has not gone away. In the past few months, Yahoo, Dell, BMW and Microsoft have all sued small domain registrars and domainers, asserting that they are profiting from thousands of names similar to their trademarks. The cases are pending. Another tainted tactic is known as domain hijacking. Nefarious domainers try to trick registrars into transferring ownership of a company's domain name to them, or use identity-theft techniques to obtain a company's passwords to its domain-name accounts. Then they typically resell the domain quickly online. Fear of domain hijacking strikes at the heart of many companies. Susan Kawaguchi, global domain name manager at eBay, said during a DomainFest session on domain strategies for corporations that her company spent a lot of time "trying to make sure someone doesn't steal eBay.com." As the industry matures, some small players worry they might get trampled. Don Bowman, a former auto liquidator from Columbus, Ohio, now runs a domain-buying business with his sister. Bowman said the larger companies were developing sophisticated software to buy desirable domain names as soon as they became available, leaving little operations like his in the dust. "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." --- -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 vb at bertola.eu Tue Jan 1 07:27:17 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:27:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> yehudakatz at mailinator.com ha scritto: > 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village I'd have been very happy to join the "give one get one" promotion and pay for two OLPCs, donate one and receive the other - I'd be happy to study it and understand how to promote the development of free, independent applications for it. Unfortunately the promotion was only available to North Americans :-( -- 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 10:49:09 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:49:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> References: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> Message-ID: I think the North America restriction has to do with shipping costs. I did G1G1. It's an amazing product. And the related Wiki is equally amazing. I have only tested accessing the internet, won't be able to pay more attention for a few weeks. Because, ... And as an aside, I picked up a Trojan in Rio, I think from using my thumb drive to print a .doc file using the IGF computers. The drive, my laptop, and my desktop were infected and I've had a hard time cleaning up (and had carelessly not done recent backups). Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jan 1 15:25:22 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:25:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: 477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu Message-ID: The OLPC-G1G1 program lives on: http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/g1g1/ Also of interest: http://xolaptopmap.blogspot.com/ http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/ http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/olpc_india_cow_power_dynamo.html http://classroom20.ning.com/group/xo http://www.engadget.com/tag/giveonegetone Def.: OLPC - G1/G1 [ One Laptop Per Child - Give One/Get One ] -- 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/25/onelaptop.onevillage.ap/index.html Story Highlights: * 50 primary school children in hilltop Andean village using "One Laptop" machines * Peru has ordered more than 272,000 machines for 9,000 elementary schools * Project the brainchild of former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte - ARAHUAY, Peru (AP) -- Doubts about whether poor, rural children really can benefit from quirky little computers evaporate as quickly as the morning dew in this hilltop Andean village, where 50 primary school children got machines from the One Laptop Per Child project six months ago. These offspring of peasant families whose monthly earnings rarely exceed the cost of one of the $188 laptops -- people who can ill afford pencil and paper much less books -- can't get enough of their "XO" laptops. At breakfast, they're already powering up the combination library/videocam/audio recorder/music maker/drawing kits. At night, they're dozing off in front of them -- if they've managed to keep older siblings from waylaying the coveted machines. "It's really the kind of conditions that we designed for," Walter Bender, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff, said of this agrarian backwater up a precarious dirt road. Founded in 2005 by former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte, the One Laptop program has retreated from early boasts that developing-world governments would snap up millions of the pint-sized laptops at $100 each. In a backhanded tribute, One Laptop now faces homegrown competitors everywhere from Brazil to India -- and a full-court press from Intel Corp.'s more power-hungry Classmate. But no competitor approaches the XO in innovation. It is hard drive-free, runs on the Linux operating system and stretches wireless networks with "mesh" technology that lets each computer in a village relay data to the others. Mass production began last month and Negroponte, brother of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, says he expects at least 1.5 million machines to be sold by next November. Even that would be far less than Negroponte originally envisioned. The higher-than-initially-advertised price and a lack of the Windows operating system, still being tested for the XO, have dissuaded many potential government buyers. Peru made the single biggest order to date -- more than 272,000 machines -- in its quest to turn around a primary education system that the World Economic Forum recently ranked last among 131 countries surveyed. Uruguay was the No. 2 buyers of the laptops, inking a contract for 100,000. Negroponte said 150,000 more laptops will get shipped to countries including Rwanda, Mongolia, Haiti, and Afghanistan in early 2008 through "Give One, Get One," a U.S.-based promotion ending December 31 in which you buy a pair of laptops for $399 and donate one or both. The children of Arahuay prove One Laptop's transformative conceit: that you can revolutionize education and democratize the Internet by giving a simple, durable, power-stingy but feature-packed laptop to the worlds' poorest kids. "Some tell me that they don't want to be like their parents, working in the fields," first-grade teacher Erica Velasco says of her pupils. She had just sent them to the Internet to seek out photos of invertebrates -- animals without backbones. Antony, 12, wants to become an accountant. Alex, 7, aspires to be a lawyer. Kevin, 9, wants to play trumpet. Saida, 10, is already a promising videographer, judging from her artful recording of the town's recent Fiesta de la Virgen. "What they work with most is the (built-in) camera. They love to record," says Maria Antonieta Mendoza, an Education Ministry psychologist studying the Arahuay pilot to devise strategies for the big rollout when the new school year begins in March. Before the laptops, the only cameras the kids at Santiago Apostol school saw in this population-800 hamlet arrived with tourists who visit for festivals or to see local Inca ruins. Arahuay's lone industry is agriculture. Surrounding fields yield avocados, mangoes, potatoes, corn, alfalfa and cherimoya. Many adults share only weekends with their children, spending the work week in fields many hours' walk from town and relying on charities to help keep their families nourished. When they finish school, young people tend to abandon the village. Peru's head of educational technology, Oscar Becerra, is betting the One Laptop program can reverse this rural exodus to the squalor of Lima's shantytowns four hours away. It's the best answer yet to "a global crisis of education" in which curricula have no relevance, he said. "If we make education pertinent, something the student enjoys, then it won't matter if the classroom's walls are straw or the students are sitting on fruit boxes." Indeed, Arahuay's elementary school population rose by 10 when families learned the laptop pilot was coming, said Guillermo Lazo, the school's director. The XOs that Peru is buying will be distributed to pupils in 9,000 elementary schools from the Pacific to the Amazon basin where a single teacher serves all grades, Becerra said. Although Peru boasts thousands of rural satellite downlinks that provide Internet access, only about 4,000 of the schools getting XOs will be connected, said Becerra. Negroponte says One Laptop is committed to helping Peru overcome that hurdle. Without Internet access, he believes, the program is incomplete. Teachers will get 2� days of training on the laptops, Becerra said. Each machine will initially be loaded with about 100 copyright-free books. Where applicable, texts in native languages will be included, he added. The machines will also have a chat function that will let kids make faraway friends over the Internet. Critics of the rollout have two key concerns. The first is the ability of teachers -- poorly trained and equipped to begin with -- to cope with profoundly disruptive technology. Eduardo Villanueva, a communications professor at Lima's Catholic University, fears "a general disruption of the educational system that will manifest itself in the students overwhelming the teachers." To counter that fear, Becerra said the government is offering $150 grants to qualifying teachers toward the purchase of conventional laptops, for which it is also arranging low-interest loans. The second big concern is maintenance. For every 100 units it will distribute to students, Peru is buying one extra for parts. But there is no tech support program. Students and teachers will have to do it. "What you want is for the kids to do the repairs," said Negroponte, who believes such tinkering is itself a valuable lesson. "I think the kids can repair 95 percent of the laptops." Tech support is nevertheless a serious issue in many countries, Negroponte acknowledged in a phone interview. One Laptop is currently bidding on a contract with Brazil's government that Negroponte says demanded unrealistically onerous support requirements. The XO machines are water resistant, rugged and designed to last five years. They have no fan so they won't suck up dust, are built to withstand drops from a meter and a half and can absorb power spikes typical of places with irregular electricity. Mendoza, the psychologist, is overjoyed that the program stipulates that kids get ownership of the laptops. Take Kevin, the aspiring trumpet player. Sitting in his dirt-floor kitchen as his mother cooks lunch, he draws a soccer field on his XO, then erases it. Kevin plays a song by "Caliente," his favorite combo, that he recorded off Arahuay's single TV channel. He shows a reporter photos he took of him with his 3-year-old brother. A bare light bulb hangs by a wire from the ceiling. A hen bobs around the floor. There are no books in this two-room house. Kevin's parents didn't get past the sixth grade. Indeed, the laptop project also has adults in its sights. Parents in Arahuay are asking Mendoza, the visiting psychologist, what the Internet can do for them. Among them is Charito Arrendondo, 39, who sheds brief tears of joy when a reporter asks what the laptop belonging to ruddy-cheeked Miluska -- the youngest of her six children -- has meant to her. Miluska's father, it turns out, abandoned the family when she was 1. "We never imagined having a computer," said Arrendondo, a cook. Is she afraid to use the laptop, as is typical of many Arahuay parents, about half of whom are illiterate? "No, I like it. Sometimes when I'm alone and the kids are not around I turn it on and poke around." Arrendondo likes to play checkers on the laptop. "It's also got chess, which I sort of know," she said, pausing briefly. "I'm going to learn." --- -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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 11:27:57 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:27:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] 2007 IPv4 Address Use Report In-Reply-To: <2F0D40AA-416B-4949-ADBB-31E8B13EB014@muada.com> References: <2F0D40AA-416B-4949-ADBB-31E8B13EB014@muada.com> Message-ID: FYI, FWded from RIPE IPv6-WG list: Date: Jan 2, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: [ipv6-wg] 2007 IPv4 Address Use Report To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net 2007 IPv4 Address Use Report In 2007, the number of available IPv4 addresses went down from 1300.65 million to 1122.85 million, a difference of 177.8 million addresses. The number of usable addresses is 3706.65 million, so on January 1, 2007 we were at 64.9% utilization and a year later we're at 69.7%. These figures are derived from the records published on the FTP servers of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): AfriNIC, which gives out address space in Africa, APNIC (Asia-Pacific region), ARIN (North America), LACNIC (Latin American and the Caribbean) and the RIPE NCC (Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East). There are two other ways to interpret the same data. The first is simply add up all the address space with a date indicating that it was given out in 2007. That number is 186.93 million addresses. The third method is to compensate for ARIN's record keeping peculiarities (see this Internet Protocol Journal article). This brings the total for 2007 to no less than 196.77 million, the highest number ever. The second-highest was 1991 with 189 million addresses. The 196.77 million figure is approxmately 19% higher than the 2005 and 2006 numbers, which were largely the same. All numbers only include addresses that are still in use. For the first time in many years, in 2007 one of the old class A blocks was returned to IANA: block 46.0.0.0/8, 16.78 million addresses in size, is now part of the global pool of free address space. This accounts for most of the difference between the 177.8 and 196.77 numbers. The status of the 221 usable blocks of 16.78 million address is now as follows: Delegated to Blocks +/- 2007 Addresses (millions) AfriNIC 2 +1 33.55 APNIC 26 +7 436.21 ARIN 27 452.98 LACNIC 6 +2 100.66 RIPE NCC 26 +4 436.21 Various 49 -1 822.08 End-user 42 -1 704.64 Available 43 -12 721.42 In addition to the 43 unused blocks (721.42 million addresses) that IANA holds, there is additional free space in the form of addresses delegated from IANA to the regional internet registries, but not yet further delegated by the RIR in question to an ISP or end-user. 2006-01-01 2007-01-01 delegated delegated free delegated delegated free TO BY TO BY AfriNIC 16.78 6.39 10.39 33.55 11.97 21.58 APNIC 318.77 297.23 21.54 436.21 366.87 69.34 ARIN 452.98 350.48 102.50 452.98 394.08 58.90 LACNIC 67.11 42.71 24.40 100.66 57.52 43.14 RIPE NCC 369.10 317.62 51.48 436.21 378.35 57.86 Total RIRs 1224.74 1014.43 210.31 1459.61 1208.79 250.82 Various 838.86 671.26 167.60 822.08 671.48 150.60 End-user 721.42 704.64 16.78 704.64 671.09 33.55 Available 922.74 16.78 905.96 721.42 16.78 704.64 Total 3707.76 2407.11 1300.65 3707.75 2568.14 1139.61 This view uncovers two inconsistencies: block 7.0.0.0/8 that is part of the free space according to the IANA IPv4 address space overview shows up as delegated to the US Department of Defense in ARIN's records. Net 14.0.0.0/8 is for the "public data net" (see RFCs 3330 and 1700) so it's not part of the regular delegation system. 43.0.0.0/8 is delegated to "Japan Inet" by IANA. Those delegations used to be registered in ARIN's database but this block was transferred to APNIC in 2007, where it does show up in the whois service, but not as part of the delegated address space in the files on the FTP server. The total of 3707.76 (or 3707.75) million addresses is slightly different from the 3706.65 maximum mentioned earlier because the latter excludes all RFC 1918 private address space, the former still includes 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.16.0.0/12. The size of address blocks given out was increasing until 2005, but now shows a downturn. The table below shows the number of delegations for a certain range of block sizes (equal or higher than the first, lower than the second value). (2005 and earlier values from 2006-01-01 data, 2006 and 2007 values from 2007-01-01 data. No correction for the ARIN accounting method.) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 < 1000 474 547 745 1022 1309 1507 1830 1000 - 8000 1176 897 1009 1516 1891 2265 2839 8000 - 64k 868 822 1014 1100 1039 1192 1015 64k - 500k 262 163 215 404 309 419 395 500k - 2M 39 29 46 61 60 57 62 > 2M 5 5 6 7 18 17 24 The increase in large blocks has a very dramatic effect while the small blocks are insignificant, when looking at the millions of addresses involved: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 < 1000 0.16 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.44 0.51 0.63 1000 - 8000 4.47 3.23 3.45 4.49 5.07 5.83 6.93 8000 - 64k 12.81 11.35 14.00 15.99 15.46 18.01 15.67 64k - 500k 32.19 20.28 25.51 42.01 34.23 50.86 50.83 500k - 2M 24.64 21.30 31.98 44.63 41.63 46.69 45.50 > 2M 14.68 12.58 12.58 20.97 68.62 52.43 67.37 Despite the strong increase in the number of 2 million+ blocks and the amount of address space given out in these blocks, the average block size has been going down because of the very large growth in the numbers of smaller blocks: Year Blocks Addresses (M) Average block size 2000 2794 78.35 28043 2001 2824 88.95 31497 2002 2463 68.93 27985 2003 3035 87.77 28921 2004 4110 128.45 31252 2005 4626 165.45 35765 2006 5457 174.32 31945 2007 6165 186.92 30320 The 2568.14 million addresses currently in use aren't very evenly distributed over the countries in the world. The current top 15 is: 2007-01-01 2007-01-01 change Country 1 - US 1408.15 M 1366.53 M +3% United States 2 - JP 141.47 M 151.27 M -6% Japan 3 (4) CN 135.31 M 98.02 M +38% China 4 (3) EU 120.35 M 115.83 M +4% Multi-country in Europe 5 - GB 83.50 M 93.91 M -11% United Kingdom 6 - CA 73.20 M 71.32 M +3% Canada 7 - DE 72.46 M 61.59 M +18% Germany 8 - FR 67.79 M 58.23 M +16% France 9 - KR 58.86 M 51.13 M +15% Korea 10 - AU 33.43 M 30.64 M +9% Australia 11 (12) IT 24.04 M 19.14 M +26% Italy 12 (11) BR 23.46 M 19.27 M +22% Brazil 13 (16) MX 21.50 M 16.26 M +32% Mexico 14 (13) ES 20.42 M 18.69 M +9% Spain 15 - NL 19.89 M 18.08 M +10% Netherlands The -6% and -11% figures for the UK and Japan are once again anomalies: the former is the missing 43.0.0.0/8 net and in the latter case, ARIN and RIPE both had a record for 25.0.0.0/8 in the 2007-01-01 data, but this was cleared up in the 2008-01-01 data. Although the US still added more than 40 million new addresses to its immense existing stockpile, its growth was modest percentage-wise and it now holds 55% of the IPv4 address space in use, down from 57%. All of the other countries in the top 15 except for Canada and "EU" saw their address use grow faster than the 7% average. This brings the total for the top 15 excluding the US to 35%, up from 34%. The rest of the world gets the remaining 10%, up from 9%. See http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2007.php for a copy of this report and links to the versions for 2006 and 2005. -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Jan 2 15:50:21 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:50:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: References: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <477BF90D.8020209@cavebear.com> Sylvia Caras wrote: > I did G1G1. Or "Buy two, get one". Whatever it's called, it's a good program. I have not yet tried mine out on an IPv6 net - all of my wireless is IPv4 and I did not find a driver module for a USB based copper ethernet adapter. I did not notice any network management hooks (such as an SNMP server), but I may have missed it. I'm kinda concerned about the issue of managing (locating?) and repairing these things in the field and my first scan suggests that they were a bit light on the diagnostic tool side. On the other hand that might be readily cured via a collection of tools on a USB "thumb drive". Mine (accidentally) underwent the drop test - it survived. Keyboard is too tiny for me to use in any efficient way. I use the same CPU and companion chipset on another project on a different hardware base. I don't have to do the bit pushing to do graphical user interface. The slowdown seemingly caused by the burden of driving a GUI appears rather significant. If my experience is indicative, its raw computing abilities are much more than the speed of the user interface would suggest. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Jan 3 05:51:37 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:51:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20080103105137.GA12628@nic.fr> On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:42PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote a message of 75 lines which said: > (By-the-way, it may be a bit ironic to consider the relative sizes > and recognition between the city in which you live, Syracuse, New > York, as compared to its classic namesake - between the two, which > might have a better claim to TLD status?) Wikipedia already had the discussion, a tough one: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-July/027186.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Jan 3 13:05:15 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:05:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <20080103105137.GA12628@nic.fr> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <20080103105137.GA12628@nic.fr> Message-ID: At 11:51 AM +0100 1/3/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:42PM -0800, > Karl Auerbach wrote > a message of 75 lines which said: > >> (By-the-way, it may be a bit ironic to consider the relative sizes >> and recognition between the city in which you live, Syracuse, New >> York, as compared to its classic namesake - between the two, which >> might have a better claim to TLD status?) > >Wikipedia already had the discussion, a tough one: > >http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-July/027186.html Why should either/any city have *exclusive* claim to the geoTLD? Wikipedia's format requires some choice or disambiguation, but there is no a priori technical reason that I can see that a TLD must be bound by the same logic. I understand that the registries and probably IPC and BC at ICANN likely would not want to mandate nondiscrimination policies for gTLD registries. But that's a political obstacle (and an issue of ICANN's governance structure), not a technical or logical one. Just perhaps, not *all possible/feasible/profitable* business models are necessarily *appropriate* for TLD registries? Why shouldn't ICANN have some component of anti-trust dynamics in its regulation of registries (even if it may be exempt from specific anti-trust laws in the US, which may not be entirely clear)? ICANN ought to "do the right thing" even if some higher authority is not forcing it to do so, yes? Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 3 20:44:27 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:44:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... Message-ID: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the last couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the Russian-language part of the net - and its aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely independent from the wider web." See: Kremlin eyes internet control ... The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields and undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government is pushing for greater control over the Russian-language part of the net - and its aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely independent from the wider web. The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of Paraguay. That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim Davies, who controls the domain names at the international domain naming agency Icann told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top level domain name of .ru in Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship Of course, those who check out my website will have already seen the link (shameless self promotion I know!). See http://technewsreview.com.au/ Cheers David --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 4 03:11:40 2008 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:11:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] TECHNOLOGY IN WARTIME CONFERENCE Message-ID: <811239.14803.qm@web25507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Folks, Wondering if any on this list will find this interesting. Please pass it on to any colleagues who may be interested in this: http://technologyinwartime.org/node/4 http://www.cpsr.org/ Good day, Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Jan 4 03:56:06 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:56:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080104085606.GA11897@nic.fr> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:44:27PM -0800, David Goldstein wrote a message of 43 lines which said: > The Guardian reported in the last couple of days The Guardian paper is so ridiculous, so full of incredibly wrong technical information (such as the confusion between IP and the DNS), that it will certainly not help to decipher the plans of the russian government. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 4 04:40:28 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:40:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Kremlin eyes internet control ... Message-ID: <689178.78841.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I think you mean this report in The Guardian Stephane given the normal excellence of the newspaper... But fair enough point about the article... ----- Original Message ---- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: David Goldstein Cc: Governance Mailing List Sent: Friday, 4 January, 2008 7:56:06 PM Subject: Re: Kremlin eyes internet control ... On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:44:27PM -0800, David Goldstein wrote a message of 43 lines which said: > The Guardian reported in the last couple of days The Guardian paper is so ridiculous, so full of incredibly wrong technical information (such as the confusion between IP and the DNS), that it will certainly not help to decipher the plans of the russian government. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 4 04:48:19 2008 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:48:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] TECHNOLOGY IN WARTIME CONFERENCE In-Reply-To: <811239.14803.qm@web25507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <195341.38517.qm@web23314.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Thanks Kwami, That's a good one but I don't think we as journalists need to wait until its war time to learn how to report on it when politicians messes us, like what is happening in Kenya right now. I encourage folks to file in and better still engage the online version since it would have webcast and book afterwards. Good luck. kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: Folks, Wondering if any on this list will find this interesting. Please pass it on to any colleagues who may be interested in this: http://technologyinwartime.org/node/4 http://www.cpsr.org/ Good day, Kwasi ............................................................................................................................... “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ______________________________________REMMY NWEKE Senior Reporter, IT & Telecom Head, ICT Desk, Champion Newspapers Ltd 156/158 Oshodi-Apapa Expressway, Isolo Industrial Layout, Ilasamaja P.O. Box 2276, Oshodi-Lagos, Fax: 234-01-4526017, 4524421 GSM: 234-8023122558, 8033592762, 8051000475 Editor, ITREALMS Online, www.itrealms.blogspot.com email: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk 'First Nigerian IT African Siemens Profile Award winner-2004' Second prize winner, ECA-AISI Media Award-05 'Two-time winner, African Siemens Profile Award IT Business Solution-2005' Highway Africa News Agency (HANA) Journalist of the Year - 2006 Top prize winner HPcontest for Nigerian media 2006 First runner up Nigeria IT & Telecom Awards 2006 --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 07:26:57 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:26:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I can't for the heck of me think why Russia would want to go to all that trouble and then stick to ".ru" in Cyrillic, when "Russia" in Russian is Rossiya (Росси́я) - and ".po" is not taken, nor is ".pc" so Paraguay need not fear a war over ".py". And if it about asserting cyrillicness, then, there is nothing more patently Cyrillic than "я". So, new ccTLD, ".pя" Regards, Rui On 04/01/2008, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the last > couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the > Russian-language part of the net - and its > aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > independent from the wider web." See: > > Kremlin eyes internet control ... > The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields and > undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government is pushing > for greater control over the Russian-language part of the net - and its aim > seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > independent from the wider web. > > The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII > suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of Paraguay. > That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim Davies, who > controls the domain names at the international domain naming agency Icann > told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top level domain name of .ru in > Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship > > Of course, those who check out my website will have already seen the link > (shameless self promotion I know!). See http://technewsreview.com.au/ > > Cheers > David > > --------- > David Goldstein > address: 4/3 Abbott Street > COOGEE NSW 2034 > AUSTRALIA > email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au > phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) > > "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time > you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail > now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Jan 4 07:28:31 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:28:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Internet: Governance and the Law - call for papers Message-ID: <200801041227.m04CRa61006869@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, I received this call for paper which might be of interest for you, on "The Internet: Governance and the Law - Civil Society and the Governance of Multimodal Communication". It is circulated by the Center for International Legal Studies and McGill University. Deadline for the receipt of abstracts by the organizers is 14 April 2008. See more background information in the attached documents. Best, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CILSCall07.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CILSCall07 Fr.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68608 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CILSStyle Sheet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77819 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Fri Jan 4 11:06:14 2008 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:06:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40801040806j6481b3f0w329d79b6a0124b5f@mail.gmail.com> Surely there is a good reason for .ru as well as for .rf in Cyrillic. The fact that we may not understand sometimes the reasons, or find different solutions to the problems does not mean the reasons don't exist, or the solutions will not be turned down in a different culture than the NorthWest. This list becomes more and more representing the NW culture, and it has been like that for a while. This surely worries me. Best wishes for the New Year to all of you. More detailed wishes are at my blog http://blog.veni.com Veni On 1/4/08, Rui Correia wrote: > I can't for the heck of me think why Russia would want to go to all that > trouble and then stick to ".ru" in Cyrillic, when "Russia" in Russian is > Rossiya (Росси́я) - and ".po" is not taken, nor is ".pc" so Paraguay need > not fear a war over ".py". And if it about asserting cyrillicness, then, > there is nothing more patently Cyrillic than "я". So, new ccTLD, ".pя" > > Regards, > > Rui > > On 04/01/2008, David Goldstein wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the last > > couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the > > Russian-language part of the net - and its > > aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > > independent from the wider web." See: > > > > Kremlin eyes internet control ... > > The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields and > > undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government is pushing > > for greater control over the Russian-language part of the net - and its > aim > > seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > > independent from the wider web. > > > > The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII > > suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of Paraguay. > > That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim Davies, who > > controls the domain names at the international domain naming agency Icann > > told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top level domain name of .ru in > > Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship > > > > Of course, those who check out my website will have already seen the link > > (shameless self promotion I know!). See http://technewsreview.com.au/ > > > > Cheers > > David > > > > --------- > > David Goldstein > > address: 4/3 Abbott Street > > COOGEE NSW 2034 > > AUSTRALIA > > email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au > > phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) > > > > "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time > > you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim > Flannery > > > > > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail > > now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Jan 5 16:19:08 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:19:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium Message-ID: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm "First-of-its-kind agreement recognizes mutual responsibilities, supports enhanced Internet stability" The management of root name servers have always been a dark spot of Internet governance. Nobody knows about it and nobody cares (there have been a few papers by Karl Auerbach and that's all). Incredible as it may seems, a function which is so essential for the DNS (and therefore for the vast majority of Internet uses) have always been done without any sort of formal agreement. Nobody knows why Verisign manages two name servers and Neustar zero, what could be done if a root name server operator provides a bad service, how root name servers could be added, retired or changed. In practice, the set of root name servers is now cast in stone. Some persons believe it is better that way and that the service is better done by the present volunteers than by a mono-governemental bureaucracy (ICANN) or a multi-governemental one (ITU). So, this move is important. As ICANN says, it is indeed the first formalization of the relationship between ICANN and a root name server operator. I see what ICANN obtains. I'm very unsure about the gains for ISC. Was it a necessary condition to obtain the announcement of ISC IPv6 addresses in the root-servers.net zone? (http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-December/002192.html) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jan 5 16:35:06 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:35:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> Message-ID: <0f1301c84fe2$de7b87e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Agreed, this is important - even more so as Paul Vixie would be the most progressive of the root zone operators and has also been involved with ORSN. Do we have any m ore details on the nature of the agreement and what it recognizes? 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: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: 06 January 2008 08:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm "First-of-its-kind agreement recognizes mutual responsibilities, supports enhanced Internet stability" The management of root name servers have always been a dark spot of Internet governance. Nobody knows about it and nobody cares (there have been a few papers by Karl Auerbach and that's all). Incredible as it may seems, a function which is so essential for the DNS (and therefore for the vast majority of Internet uses) have always been done without any sort of formal agreement. Nobody knows why Verisign manages two name servers and Neustar zero, what could be done if a root name server operator provides a bad service, how root name servers could be added, retired or changed. In practice, the set of root name servers is now cast in stone. Some persons believe it is better that way and that the service is better done by the present volunteers than by a mono-governemental bureaucracy (ICANN) or a multi-governemental one (ITU). So, this move is important. As ICANN says, it is indeed the first formalization of the relationship between ICANN and a root name server operator. I see what ICANN obtains. I'm very unsure about the gains for ISC. Was it a necessary condition to obtain the announcement of ISC IPv6 addresses in the root-servers.net zone? (http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-December/002192.html) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 05/01/2008 11:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 05/01/2008 11:46 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Jan 5 16:45:15 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:45:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <0f1301c84fe2$de7b87e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> <0f1301c84fe2$de7b87e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080105214515.GA12633@nic.fr> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 08:35:06AM +1100, Ian Peter wrote a message of 85 lines which said: > Do we have any m ore details on the nature of the agreement and what > it recognizes? I do not think so, because of this warning in the announcement: "Final adoption of this agreement will come with ratification by both organizations' Boards, and is expected in January." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Sat Jan 5 17:54:06 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:54:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> Message-ID: <71E863BF-8348-4C85-8440-03E45E247676@internet.law.pro> I think it's premature to comment on anything that exists just in the form of a breathless press release. I've asked the ICANN press people to post a copy of the actual agreement, and they are looking into it, but I was told nothing before Monday at the earliest. Bret -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karl at cavebear.com Sat Jan 5 18:08:11 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:08:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> Message-ID: <47800DDB.2090807@cavebear.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm > (there > have been a few papers by Karl Auerbach and that's all). Back in 2005 - Towards the end of http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html one can see some suggested terms for such an agreement. (It's amusing that I have so often been told by various people that I'm living in the past and keep resurrecting older (aka "inconvenient"?) issues. Seems like the past still has some life in it after all... ) It is also amusing that ISC's principal (Paul Vixie - a person who deserves a permanent internet halo) is also involved in an alternate root system - ORSN http://european.ch.orsn.net/ ) Will this agreement provide for third party beneficiary rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_beneficiary - so that it can be enforced even if ICANN, as it and its ombudsman have a tendency to do, look the other way if things go awry? Anyway here's the list: * Servers must be operated to ensure high availability of individual servers, of anycast server clusters, and of network access paths. * Root zone changes should be propagated reasonably quickly as they become available. * User query packets should be answered with dispatch but without prejudice to the operator’s ability to protect itself against ill formed queries or queries that are obviously intended to cause harm or overload. * User query packets should be answered accurately and without manipulation that interferes with the user’s right to enjoy the end-to-end principle and to be free from the undesired introduction of intermediary proxies or man-in-the-middle systems. * Operators should coordinate with one another to ensure reasonably consistent responses to queries made to different root servers at approximately the same time. * There should be no discrimination either for or against any query source. * Queries should be given equal priority no matter what name the query is seeking to resolve. * There should be no ancillary data mining (e.g. using the queries to generate marketing data) except for purposes of root service capacity planning and protection. * The operator must operate its service to be reasonably robust against threats, both natural and human. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate backup and recovery plans. Part of this demonstration ought to require that the plans have been realistically tested. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate financial reserves and human resources so that should an ill event occur the operator has the capacity (and obligation) to recover. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 22:23:51 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:23:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> Message-ID: <45ed74050801051923m7818af62wfc8fa691ec57a908@mail.gmail.com> Greetings: It is indeed a pleasure to be beneficiary of the expertise here. Request: It would/will be great to read a bottom line (or even speculative) note on the "*duties and rights*" (often "*rights and duties*") here entailed. The article linked-to describes, as an interesting duality, not the usual pair, "*duties and rights*," but, rather here: "*duties and expectations*" (etc.) Is the phrase especially meaningful in context? Perhaps? Also might those with this specific expertise take a look at description of the *agreement* from different perspectives in the announcements, as described by different actors. Thanks much for this present heads-up. With best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. *Respectful Interfaces* On 1/5/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm > > "First-of-its-kind agreement recognizes mutual responsibilities, > supports enhanced Internet stability" > > The management of root name servers have always been a dark spot of > Internet governance. Nobody knows about it and nobody cares (there > have been a few papers by Karl Auerbach and that's all). > > Incredible as it may seems, a function which is so essential for the > DNS (and therefore for the vast majority of Internet uses) have always > been done without any sort of formal agreement. Nobody knows why > Verisign manages two name servers and Neustar zero, what could be done > if a root name server operator provides a bad service, how root name > servers could be added, retired or changed. In practice, the set of > root name servers is now cast in stone. > > Some persons believe it is better that way and that the service is > better done by the present volunteers than by a mono-governemental > bureaucracy (ICANN) or a multi-governemental one (ITU). > > So, this move is important. As ICANN says, it is indeed the first > formalization of the relationship between ICANN and a root name server > operator. > > I see what ICANN obtains. I'm very unsure about the gains for ISC. Was > it a necessary condition to obtain the announcement of ISC IPv6 > addresses in the root-servers.net zone? > (http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-December/002192.html > ) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 6 07:29:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:59:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC - organisational matters Message-ID: <20080106122916.97A6BE1757@smtp3.electricembers.net> Wishing a great 2008 to everyone here! We need to urgently address some organizational issues. (I am sorry for some delay in this. I was too occupied with many other responsibilities.) Most important is the election of a new co-coordinator. Vittorio's term ran out with the end of IGF meeting. (I would separately propose this as the normal practice, since much of IGC's work centers on the IGF.) As per the charter it is my responsibility to conduct the elections. Avri gave us the bad news that the voting software we used last time is no longer available. So, the first thing I seek advice on is about possible ways to conduct this election. Does anyone know of a good software/ process to do this? This is also a call for the members to put forward their names as candidates for the election. The call is open for the next 15 days, i.e. till 21st Jan, as we make preparations for the election. I request members to freely volunteer for this task. We need to put more energy into advocacy tasks of this group. We remain the main global civil society forum on IG issues, and therefore have important public interest responsibilities. More members offering themselves to volunteer for the task of coordination of the group will reflect our mutual faith in the value and purposefulness of this group. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 6 07:36:04 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:06:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC - organisational matters In-Reply-To: <20080106122916.97A6BE1757@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080106123630.663D9A6C97@smtp2.electricembers.net> I also request Vittorio to stay on in the position of co-coordinator till a new one is in position to take over. Thanks. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC - organisational matters Wishing a great 2008 to everyone here! We need to urgently address some organizational issues. (I am sorry for some delay in this. I was too occupied with many other responsibilities.) Most important is the election of a new co-coordinator. Vittorio's term ran out with the end of IGF meeting. (I would separately propose this as the normal practice, since much of IGC's work centers on the IGF.) As per the charter it is my responsibility to conduct the elections. Avri gave us the bad news that the voting software we used last time is no longer available. So, the first thing I seek advice on is about possible ways to conduct this election. Does anyone know of a good software/ process to do this? This is also a call for the members to put forward their names as candidates for the election. The call is open for the next 15 days, i.e. till 21st Jan, as we make preparations for the election. I request members to freely volunteer for this task. We need to put more energy into advocacy tasks of this group. We remain the main global civil society forum on IG issues, and therefore have important public interest responsibilities. More members offering themselves to volunteer for the task of coordination of the group will reflect our mutual faith in the value and purposefulness of this group. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 6 07:56:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:26:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080106125653.CFB7C67943@smtp1.electricembers.net> >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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 6 08:07:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:37:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Message-ID: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG - or in the official language 'suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the various interested groups'. A discussion thread has been opened on this issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the comments page. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Jan 6 08:16:54 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:16:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi In-Reply-To: <20080106125653.CFB7C67943@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080106125653.CFB7C67943@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <40AA8507-C470-4DEB-AAEE-79B14D7FDBBD@Malcolm.id.au> On 06/01/2008, at 9:56 PM, Parminder wrote: > 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 > . To save bandwidth, I'll just point to what I have already written at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio . -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 6 13:41:05 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:41:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <005501c85093$b9fc1860$8b00a8c0@IAN> Jeremy’s comments on this make a lot of sense (follow the link below to see them) However I suspect we will find it difficult to change the method of SG selecting members and creating a balance among the various groups. That means, as happened last time, we can only recommend names and expect some of them will be rejected. In this context, I would recommend our position be that the MAG should serve two year terms and then be totally reconstituted – but with a recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be reappointed to provide continuity. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 07 January 2008 00:08 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG – or in the official language ‘suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the various interested groups’. A discussion thread has been opened on this issue on the IGF website at HYPERLINK "http://intgovforum.org/forum/"http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the comments page. Parminder No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 05/01/2008 11:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 06/01/2008 11:57 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 6 14:33:41 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:33:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: ISOC Board of Trustees nominations reminder In-Reply-To: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <005e01c8509b$11ba8ad0$8b00a8c0@IAN> As a member of ISOC’s Nomcom this year I’d like to remind interested people that nominations for the ISOC Board of Trustees elections close Tuesday evening – self nominations are possible and acceptable, and details can be found from HYPERLINK "http://www.isoc.org/"www.isoc.org – or alternatively by emailing me. Ian Peter No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 05/01/2008 11:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 06/01/2008 11:57 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jan 7 05:05:01 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:05:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> <47800DDB.2090807@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The issue of formal or informal agreements/contracts with root server operators played an important role during the discussion within the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in 2004/2005. In the beginning representatives from Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, Cuba, China and other countries critisized very strongly the informal arragements among the US government, ICANN and the root server operators and called for a system of legally binding contractual relations under inter-governmental control. They also critisized that ten of the 13 root servers are based in the US. Other WGIG members argued that the existing arrangements of the "voluntary system" by private entities - with all the weaknesses - guarantees both stability and flexibility and organize a pressure of self-discipline which does not need a legally binding duty. One argument in favor of the "voluntary system", among others, was that the informality could be used also as a shield against a misuse of the role of the US government (which decides which TLD root zone file should be published, not published, deleted or changed in the Hidden Server/the former A Root Server). Some of the above mentioned countries feared that the US government could - under certain political circumstances - use their power over the Hidden Server to "punish" a country by deleting the ccTLD root zone file from the Hidden server. In such a (hypothetical) case - as an example - the Swedish I-Root Server would have much more flexibility to ignore such a politicially motivated change if they do NOT have a formal arrangement or contract which would oblige them to guarantee to follow the instructions from the Hidden server in the daily update of the data. With regard to the 13 root servers the counter argument here was that the number of the existing root servers is limited for technical reason but that the system of Anycast (root) servers (now more than 100 all over the world) would also reduce the capacity for "political misuse" of the root server system by one single government close to zero. As a results the WGIG reports included two recommendations into the final report: "76: ...Noting that the number of root servers cannot be increased to more than 13 due to protocol limitations, carry out a requirements analysis to determine the appropriate evolution, including possible restructuring, of the architecture to meet end-user requirements and clarify the institutional arrangements needed to guarantee continuity of a stable and secure functioning of the root system during and after a possible period of governance reform." It would be helpful to get as soon as possible the details of the announced arrangement among ICANN and the F-Root Server (which is also host for about 50 anycast root servers) and to learn what does it mean for the relationship with the other 12 root serrver operators and the IANA contract with the US govenrment (which is not part of the Joint Project Agreement/JPA, now under mid-.term review). Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Gesendet: So 06.01.2008 00:08 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm > (there > have been a few papers by Karl Auerbach and that's all). Back in 2005 - Towards the end of http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html one can see some suggested terms for such an agreement. (It's amusing that I have so often been told by various people that I'm living in the past and keep resurrecting older (aka "inconvenient"?) issues. Seems like the past still has some life in it after all... ) It is also amusing that ISC's principal (Paul Vixie - a person who deserves a permanent internet halo) is also involved in an alternate root system - ORSN http://european.ch.orsn.net/ ) Will this agreement provide for third party beneficiary rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_beneficiary - so that it can be enforced even if ICANN, as it and its ombudsman have a tendency to do, look the other way if things go awry? Anyway here's the list: * Servers must be operated to ensure high availability of individual servers, of anycast server clusters, and of network access paths. * Root zone changes should be propagated reasonably quickly as they become available. * User query packets should be answered with dispatch but without prejudice to the operator's ability to protect itself against ill formed queries or queries that are obviously intended to cause harm or overload. * User query packets should be answered accurately and without manipulation that interferes with the user's right to enjoy the end-to-end principle and to be free from the undesired introduction of intermediary proxies or man-in-the-middle systems. * Operators should coordinate with one another to ensure reasonably consistent responses to queries made to different root servers at approximately the same time. * There should be no discrimination either for or against any query source. * Queries should be given equal priority no matter what name the query is seeking to resolve. * There should be no ancillary data mining (e.g. using the queries to generate marketing data) except for purposes of root service capacity planning and protection. * The operator must operate its service to be reasonably robust against threats, both natural and human. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate backup and recovery plans. Part of this demonstration ought to require that the plans have been realistically tested. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate financial reserves and human resources so that should an ill event occur the operator has the capacity (and obligation) to recover. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From puna_gb at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 06:31:49 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:31:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <98094.257.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Is the OLPC only for Americans or is there going to be a roll-out to other parts of the world, Africa, to be specific? Regards, Gao Mosweu Mistletoe Services Botswana Vittorio Bertola wrote: yehudakatz at mailinator.com ha scritto: > 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village I'd have been very happy to join the "give one get one" promotion and pay for two OLPCs, donate one and receive the other - I'd be happy to study it and understand how to promote the development of free, independent applications for it. Unfortunately the promotion was only available to North Americans :-( -- 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 --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jan 8 06:33:29 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:03:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: <98094.257.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <477A31A5.5090800@bertola.eu> <98094.257.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005801c851ea$4cb11550$e6133ff0$@net> Umm.. please remind me, is Nigeria part of Africa or not? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Nigeria From: Gao Mosweu [mailto:puna_gb at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! Is the OLPC only for Americans or is there going to be a roll-out to other parts of the world, Africa, to be specific? Regards, Gao Mosweu Mistletoe Services Botswana Vittorio Bertola wrote: yehudakatz at mailinator.com ha scritto: > 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village I'd have been very happy to join the "give one get one" promotion and pay for two OLPCs, donate one and receive the other - I'd be happy to study it and understand how to promote the development of free, independent applications for it. Unfortunately the promotion was only available to North Americans :-( -- 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 _____ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From puna_gb at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 06:38:22 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:38:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: <005801c851ea$4cb11550$e6133ff0$@net> Message-ID: <987350.29438.qm@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes Nigeria is in Africa! Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Umm.. please remind me, is Nigeria part of Africa or not? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Nigeria From: Gao Mosweu [mailto:puna_gb at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! Is the OLPC only for Americans or is there going to be a roll-out to other parts of the world, Africa, to be specific? Regards, Gao Mosweu Mistletoe Services Botswana Vittorio Bertola wrote: yehudakatz at mailinator.com ha scritto: > 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village I'd have been very happy to join the "give one get one" promotion and pay for two OLPCs, donate one and receive the other - I'd be happy to study it and understand how to promote the development of free, independent applications for it. Unfortunately the promotion was only available to North Americans :-( -- 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 --------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Jan 8 07:31:51 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:31:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <005501c85093$b9fc1860$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <005501c85093$b9fc1860$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> Hi, the advisory group began discussing these issues in December. Rotation is just one of the issues. Quite a few people supported a rotation of 30% of all members. Another issue concerns the size of the group, the role of advisors to the chair and the role of observers. Should we define an upper limit for members and advisors? Are advisors necessary at all? We also discussed whether members should be selected by the stakeholders or by the secretariat in accordance with the UN SG. I agree with Ian that any balance between regions, skills and gender can only be reached if the various stakeholder don't have the last word but can only suggest people. The perhaps most difficult question concerns the balance between the various stakeholder groups. So far there is no strict proportional rule. Its up to the secretariat backed by New York to figure out who gets how many seats without discrediting the entire entity. Yes, in quantitative terms governments are clearly over-represented. But at least so far, this governmental over-representation doesn't translate into corresponding influence. Right now, the advisory group either reaches broad consensus on something or it doesn't. What is more, governments don't necessarily agree on many of the contested issues. So, a few members more or less should not be mistaken for more or less power. I don't see any advantage in strictly defined proportions between the various groups but would argue for a minimum representation of the various groups to prevent marginalization or exclusion. There has also been a discussion on how many stakeholder groups we actually have. Is the distinction between governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations as observers sufficient? Or should the technical community be recognized as another group of actors? And how would such a categorization relate to the issue of stakeholder balance? I am in favor of sticking to the lowest number of groups possible because each further group makes the categories the process of selection and representation only more arbitrary than it is right now. An important problem concerns regional representation. The advisory group has no funding. To participate in the MAG meetings requires resources that people from poor countries don't have. Even for civil society members like me it is difficult to organize the funding for the MAG meetings. So, even if we develop the most balanced mechanisms for regional, political and sectoral representation, lack of funding might undermine their effects. How are we dealing with this problem? Are we going to select only people who have enough funding to travel to Geneva? (My guess is that in the near future we won't convince governments to give up face to face meetings. And even if remote participation might be possible at times, it does put people at a disadvantage.) Last point. The MAG is still a contested issue. Its no secret that many governments are longing for a traditional bureau that would be working according to established intergovernmental processes and principles. This is why I would be cautious to ask for a reconstitution of the MAG. Such terminology suggests that we want to see the whole entity be put under reconsideration. Is this really what we want? jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > Jeremy’s comments on this make a lot of sense (follow the link below to > see them) > > > > However I suspect we will find it difficult to change the method of SG > selecting members and creating a balance among the various groups. That > means, as happened last time, we can only recommend names and expect > some of them will be rejected. > > > > In this context, I would recommend our position be that the MAG should > serve two year terms and then be totally reconstituted – but with a > recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be reappointed to > provide continuity. > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 07 January 2008 00:08 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus > statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG – or in the official > language ‘suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations > from the various interested groups’. A discussion thread has been opened > on this issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . > Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF > secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in > comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the > comments page. > > > > Parminder > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: > 05/01/2008 11:46 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: > 06/01/2008 11:57 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Jan 8 07:58:33 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:58:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> <47800DDB.2090807@cavebear.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20080108125833.GA15076@nic.fr> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:05:01AM +0100, Kleinwächter wrote a message of 107 lines which said: > The issue of formal or informal agreements/contracts with root > server operators played an important role during the discussion > within the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in > 2004/2005. [...] They also critisized that ten of the 13 root > servers are based in the US. Any public texts (position papers, speech transcripts, etc) about these discussions? They seem very difficult to find. > With regard to the 13 root servers the counter argument here was > that the number of the existing root servers is limited for > technical reason Do note that it was not completely true (and is now quite false). There was never a hard limit of 13 name servers. There was a limit of 512 bytes in the response (which translates to *roughly* 13 or 14 name servers) but this limit is now mostly historical, as indicated in the ICANN SSAC report on the introduction of IPv6 addresses in the root-servers.net zone. > but that the system of Anycast (root) servers (now more than 100 all > over the world) would also reduce the capacity for "political > misuse" of the root server system by one single government close to > zero. Someone really said so? This is quite ridiculous since the physical location of the machine certainly does not matter, it's the location of its operator which is important. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 8 08:13:34 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:13:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> <47800DDB.2090807@cavebear.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080108125833.GA15076@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEC9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Stephane here is an excerpt from the "Background Report" (www.wgig.org) which covers the root server issue "(iii) Root server system management 86. The root zone file contains records for all TLDs and is managed by the distribution master root server. 87. There are many steps involved in the root server system: standard setting, initiation, selection, editing, and the IANA functions of allocation, authorization, publication and mirroring. Some of the activities are purely technical or operational while other activities include a public policy dimension. The system is managed on the basis of numerous bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements, MoUs, sponsorship agreements, contracts, statements of work, and voluntary arrangements. The main actors in management/governance of the root zone file and root name servers are ICANN, the IANA functions, the US Department of Commerce (US DoC), VeriSign Inc. and the root server operators themselves. 88. The operators of root servers restrict themselves to operational matters and are not involved in policy making and data modifications. Some have expressed concerns about the current situation and consider that the following issues should be addressed: * They have no clearly defined responsibilities and accountability, especially in relation to the stability and secure functioning of the Internet; * The decision making procedure for the authorization of the publication of modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or redelegation of top-level domains ('approval' of IANA function recommendations by the US DoC) is neither multilateral nor democratic and does not involve other governments, private sector, civil society or international organizations; * The existing system is mainly based on trust, not on a treaty. The system reduces the governmental participation in the authorization of modifications, additions or deletions to one single government, which has no contractual relationship with other governments with regard to the execution of this function." With regard to the "physical location" of the root server this was indeed raised by a number of (governmental) members. There was an undefined fear that one government could control the whole root server system. There was no discussion that some root servers are operated by govenrmental bodies (dOD) and other by private or academic bodies. And there was also a unspecified expectartion that if "our country" has a root server this will strengthen our independence and souvereignty. Insofar, anycast was seen as a "step in the right direction". But, as said in an earlier mail, the heat of the discussion was cooled down in the process and in the "Chateau" this was no really an issue anymore. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Gesendet: Di 08.01.2008 13:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:05:01AM +0100, Kleinwächter wrote a message of 107 lines which said: > The issue of formal or informal agreements/contracts with root > server operators played an important role during the discussion > within the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in > 2004/2005. [...] They also critisized that ten of the 13 root > servers are based in the US. Any public texts (position papers, speech transcripts, etc) about these discussions? They seem very difficult to find. > With regard to the 13 root servers the counter argument here was > that the number of the existing root servers is limited for > technical reason Do note that it was not completely true (and is now quite false). There was never a hard limit of 13 name servers. There was a limit of 512 bytes in the response (which translates to *roughly* 13 or 14 name servers) but this limit is now mostly historical, as indicated in the ICANN SSAC report on the introduction of IPv6 addresses in the root-servers.net zone. > but that the system of Anycast (root) servers (now more than 100 all > over the world) would also reduce the capacity for "political > misuse" of the root server system by one single government close to > zero. Someone really said so? This is quite ridiculous since the physical location of the machine certainly does not matter, it's the location of its operator which is important. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 8 08:21:34 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:21:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> <47800DDB.2090807@cavebear.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080108125833.GA15076@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DECB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is another piece from 2005, the Issue Paper on the Root Server http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGPaper-Cluster1-RootServer-Final.pdf w ________________________________ Von: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Gesendet: Di 08.01.2008 13:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:05:01AM +0100, Kleinwächter wrote a message of 107 lines which said: > The issue of formal or informal agreements/contracts with root > server operators played an important role during the discussion > within the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in > 2004/2005. [...] They also critisized that ten of the 13 root > servers are based in the US. Any public texts (position papers, speech transcripts, etc) about these discussions? They seem very difficult to find. > With regard to the 13 root servers the counter argument here was > that the number of the existing root servers is limited for > technical reason Do note that it was not completely true (and is now quite false). There was never a hard limit of 13 name servers. There was a limit of 512 bytes in the response (which translates to *roughly* 13 or 14 name servers) but this limit is now mostly historical, as indicated in the ICANN SSAC report on the introduction of IPv6 addresses in the root-servers.net zone. > but that the system of Anycast (root) servers (now more than 100 all > over the world) would also reduce the capacity for "political > misuse" of the root server system by one single government close to > zero. Someone really said so? This is quite ridiculous since the physical location of the machine certainly does not matter, it's the location of its operator which is important. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 8 23:32:24 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:32:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> Given Jeanette's comments, a couple of points to keep moving on I see the difficulty with "reconstitute" Perhaps we can work on "repopulate the MAG - but with a recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be reappointed to provide continuity". And as regards proportional representation - given the difficulties Jeanette pointed out, it's going to be difficult to insist on one third being nominated by CS groups directly. But we should be aiming for one third total any way - So maybe something like "we believe that equal representation of the three major stakeholder groups - government, business, and civil society is in the best interests of advancing the multistakeholder concept. As regards the full complement of representatives who might broadly be seen to represent various aspects of civil society, we believe it is the best interests of stakeholder balance, transparent operation and reporting, and involvement of a wider group of stakeholders, that at east 75% of the civil society representatives be chosen from a broad range of candidates submitted by the Civil Society Caucus." Just a few thoughts because I think it is important that we do respond, with a consensus position if possible. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: 08 January 2008 23:32 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Parminder' Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG Hi, the advisory group began discussing these issues in December. Rotation is just one of the issues. Quite a few people supported a rotation of 30% of all members. Another issue concerns the size of the group, the role of advisors to the chair and the role of observers. Should we define an upper limit for members and advisors? Are advisors necessary at all? We also discussed whether members should be selected by the stakeholders or by the secretariat in accordance with the UN SG. I agree with Ian that any balance between regions, skills and gender can only be reached if the various stakeholder don't have the last word but can only suggest people. The perhaps most difficult question concerns the balance between the various stakeholder groups. So far there is no strict proportional rule. Its up to the secretariat backed by New York to figure out who gets how many seats without discrediting the entire entity. Yes, in quantitative terms governments are clearly over-represented. But at least so far, this governmental over-representation doesn't translate into corresponding influence. Right now, the advisory group either reaches broad consensus on something or it doesn't. What is more, governments don't necessarily agree on many of the contested issues. So, a few members more or less should not be mistaken for more or less power. I don't see any advantage in strictly defined proportions between the various groups but would argue for a minimum representation of the various groups to prevent marginalization or exclusion. There has also been a discussion on how many stakeholder groups we actually have. Is the distinction between governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations as observers sufficient? Or should the technical community be recognized as another group of actors? And how would such a categorization relate to the issue of stakeholder balance? I am in favor of sticking to the lowest number of groups possible because each further group makes the categories the process of selection and representation only more arbitrary than it is right now. An important problem concerns regional representation. The advisory group has no funding. To participate in the MAG meetings requires resources that people from poor countries don't have. Even for civil society members like me it is difficult to organize the funding for the MAG meetings. So, even if we develop the most balanced mechanisms for regional, political and sectoral representation, lack of funding might undermine their effects. How are we dealing with this problem? Are we going to select only people who have enough funding to travel to Geneva? (My guess is that in the near future we won't convince governments to give up face to face meetings. And even if remote participation might be possible at times, it does put people at a disadvantage.) Last point. The MAG is still a contested issue. Its no secret that many governments are longing for a traditional bureau that would be working according to established intergovernmental processes and principles. This is why I would be cautious to ask for a reconstitution of the MAG. Such terminology suggests that we want to see the whole entity be put under reconsideration. Is this really what we want? jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > Jeremy’s comments on this make a lot of sense (follow the link below to > see them) > > > > However I suspect we will find it difficult to change the method of SG > selecting members and creating a balance among the various groups. That > means, as happened last time, we can only recommend names and expect > some of them will be rejected. > > > > In this context, I would recommend our position be that the MAG should > serve two year terms and then be totally reconstituted – but with a > recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be reappointed to > provide continuity. > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 07 January 2008 00:08 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] Reconstituting MAG > > > > This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus > statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG – or in the official > language ‘suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations > from the various interested groups’. A discussion thread has been opened > on this issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . > Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF > secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in > comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the > comments page. > > > > Parminder > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: > 05/01/2008 11:46 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: > 06/01/2008 11:57 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 07/01/2008 09:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1214 - Release Date: 08/01/2008 13:38 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 9 00:46:01 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:46:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> References: <005501c85093$b9fc1860$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <779124A8-9E61-4A7E-A544-2C8CF0A9F52E@Malcolm.id.au> On 08/01/2008, at 9:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > We also discussed whether members should be selected by the > stakeholders or by the secretariat in accordance with the UN SG. I > agree with Ian that any balance between regions, skills and gender > can only be reached if the various stakeholder don't have the last > word but can only suggest people. Why? If they are required to balance regions, skills and gender within each stakeholder group not just in the full MAG, this does not make sense to me. > I am in favor of sticking to the lowest number of groups possible > because each further group makes the categories the process of > selection and representation only more arbitrary than it is right now. I agree though for a slightly different reason. I see the division between the stakeholder groups as stemming from the different sources of democratic legitimacy that they bring to the table (for governments representation of their citizens, for the private sector the value of the free market, and for civil society the promotion of transnational substantive values that are not adequately represented by governments or markets). -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jan 9 01:25:00 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:25:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! In-Reply-To: 987350.29438.qm@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com Message-ID: You might try writing: One Laptop per Child George Snell, 781-487-4608 press at racepointgroup.com or Jodi Petrie, 781-487-4692 press at racepointgroup.com This info from the article below: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS160270+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107 - One Laptop per Child Giving Campaign Raises $35 Million Business Wire 2008 Over 100,000 XO Laptops on the Way to the World's Poorest and Most Remote Children CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(Business Wire)--One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a non-profit organization focused on providing educational tools to help children in developing countries "learn learning," announced today the results of its Give One Get One campaign that ran from November 12 through December 31, 2007 in the United States and Canada. In total, the campaign raised $35 million and more than 100,000 XO laptops are already in the process of being distributed to children in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Haiti, Mongolia and Rwanda. "We are extremely grateful to everyone who participated in our giving campaign," said Nicholas Negroponte, founder and chairman of One Laptop per Child. "The generous response was overwhelming and significantly helps us move forward our mission of getting laptops into the hands of as many underprivileged children as possible. Give One Get One also quickly broadened the global community of XO laptop users and we're already getting lots of feedback and creative input about ways to improve the laptop even further." In addition to making it possible to seed the launch of programs in a number of countries, the Give One Get One campaign greatly expanded community participation in the project. The community has already jumped in to help: the level of activity in OLPC forums, chat rooms, email lists and wiki has risen dramatically. Give One Get One participants have asked lots of questions - and have uncovered some new bugs - but they also have lots of answers and have submitted some new software patches. The community model is scaling. About One Laptop per Child One Laptop per Child (OLPC at www.laptop.org) is a non-profit organization created by Nicholas Negroponte and others from the MIT Media Lab to design, manufacture and distribute laptop computers that are sufficiently inexpensive to provide every child in the world access to knowledge and modern forms of education. These XO laptops are rugged, open source, and so energy efficient that they can be powered by a child manually. Mesh networking gives many machines Internet access from one connection. The pricing goal is $100. One Laptop per Child George Snell, 781-487-4608 press at racepointgroup.com or Jodi Petrie, 781-487-4692 press at racepointgroup.com -- The OLPC-G1G1 program: http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/g1g1/ Also of interest: http://xolaptopmap.blogspot.com/ http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/ http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/olpc_india_cow_power_dynamo.html http://classroom20.ning.com/group/xo http://www.engadget.com/tag/giveonegetone Ref-Def.: OLPC - G1/G1 [ One Laptop Per Child - Give One/Get One ] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 9 04:43:05 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:43:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <779124A8-9E61-4A7E-A544-2C8CF0A9F52E@Malcolm.id.au> References: <005501c85093$b9fc1860$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> <779124A8-9E61-4A7E-A544-2C8CF0A9F52E@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <47849729.4000202@wzb.eu> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/01/2008, at 9:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> We also discussed whether members should be selected by the >> stakeholders or by the secretariat in accordance with the UN SG. I >> agree with Ian that any balance between regions, skills and gender can >> only be reached if the various stakeholder don't have the last word >> but can only suggest people. > > Why? If they are required to balance regions, skills and gender within > each stakeholder group not just in the full MAG, this does not make > sense to me. You are right as far as gender balance is concerned because it is sort of a binary category. Regional diversity and expertise are much more complex. What if each stakeholder group chooses Western European candidates or if most African members are from South Africa? How do you ensure that you have experts on intellectual property rights in the group or technical expertise? My guess is that you would end up with back room negotiations to address such specific requirements. It seems more honest to me to leave the final decision to the secretariat and thereby ensure some accountability for the overall composition of the MAG. jeanette > >> I am in favor of sticking to the lowest number of groups possible >> because each further group makes the categories the process of >> selection and representation only more arbitrary than it is right now. > > I agree though for a slightly different reason. I see the division > between the stakeholder groups as stemming from the different sources of > democratic legitimacy that they bring to the table (for governments > representation of their citizens, for the private sector the value of > the free market, and for civil society the promotion of transnational > substantive values that are not adequately represented by governments or > markets). > > --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 $3}' > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From scrawford at scrawford.net Wed Jan 9 11:11:19 2008 From: scrawford at scrawford.net (Susan Crawford) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:11:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your favorite scholarly overview of current IGF-ICANN situation In-Reply-To: <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <47836D37.1030602@wzb.eu> <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <000e01c852da$452ffc60$6ce26281@LENOVO00DAB66D> Hello - I have a colleague who wants to assign an article or two about the current ICANN/IGF state of play to US law students taking a survey class. What's your favorite layperson piece of reading on this in English? Offlist replies appreciated. Many thanks, and best regards, Susan scrawford at scrawford.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Jan 9 21:36:56 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:36:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4AEDD34F-AF25-4F25-9BF5-4CED3E7F835F@Malcolm.id.au> On 09/01/2008, at 1:32 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > So maybe something like "we believe that equal representation of the > three > major stakeholder groups - government, business, and civil society > is in the > best interests of advancing the multistakeholder concept. As regards > the > full complement of representatives who might broadly be seen to > represent > various aspects of civil society, we believe it is the best > interests of > stakeholder balance, transparent operation and reporting, and > involvement of > a wider group of stakeholders, that at east 75% of the civil society > representatives be chosen from a broad range of candidates submitted > by the > Civil Society Caucus." I am not going to push against this, but it has long worried me that the Secretariat believes it has fulfilled its duty to include civil society simply by consulting with the IGC and ISOC. The IGC is a very elite group, and I think it is vain of us to think that we can represent civil society. Most ordinary Internet users have never heard of the IGF or WSIS, and aside from the geeks who might join the Internet Society, are not going to have a voice if the civil society representation on the MAG is to be constituted by IGC and ISOC nominees. Whilst what is needed in the longer term is a serious programme of outreach to ordinary Internet users, in the meantime, and as a compromise which might be included in our consensus statement on the reconstitution of the MAG, if 75% of the MAG is to be chosen from candidates submitted by the IGC, that fact should be prominently stated on the IGF Web site in the call for nominees (hopefully there will actually *be* one next time), so that any non-insiders who might be interested in nominating for the MAG will have a clue that their best chance would be to further investigate this mysterious IGC and to communicate their interest through 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 veni at veni.com Thu Jan 10 06:28:17 2008 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:28:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> This article continues to be quoted, see this one: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=12115 Luckily, the Russians have enough specialists to be able to respond here: http://telnews.ru/event/16133, but the harm from such quotes is bigger than the benefits. What I wanted to find out is if Wolfgang has been authorized by Nitin Desai to speak as his special adviser, as he is quoted as such. Because that means, Wolfgang, that you are not saying just your opinion, but also Nitin's, and the IGF. I also wonder what you had in mind here: "The proposal for 'Russian internet' would look at how they can communicate better inside the country. The internationalised domain name gives them an opportunity to do things which are now being tested in China, where they are currently using Chinese characters for three top-level domains: .net, .com and .cn." As the .rf (in Cyrillic) is actually aiming not for internal usage, but to have it for all users. As for China - they have that no on the top-level domain level, but on the second and third level. I hope you were misquoted, as the article sounded full with misquotes? best, veni At 17:44 03.01.2008 -0800, you wrote: >Hi all, > >For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the >last couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the >Russian-language part of the net - and its >aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely >independent from the wider web." See: > >Kremlin eyes internet control ... >The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields >and undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government >is pushing for greater control over the Russian-language part of the >net - and its aim seems to be to create a web that operates in >Cyrillic, completely independent from the wider web. > >The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII >suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of >Paraguay. That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim >Davies, who controls the domain names at the international domain >naming agency Icann told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top >level domain name of .ru in Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 08:50:32 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:50:32 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEDF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Veni I am also disappointed from the article. The author promised me to send quotations to me before the publication. He did not. He misunderstood a lot of details and mixed different things to a muddy soup to justify his main argument: The Kremlin wants to censor the Internet. I urged him to be very precise and to make a clear difference between real facts, current politics and speculations by some groups in the Russian government and elsewhere around "options". I asked him also to quote ms as university of aarhus and not as IGF. Unfortunately it is obviously risky to acept telephone interviews. Sorry Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Gesendet: Do 10.01.2008 12:28 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... This article continues to be quoted, see this one: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=12115 Luckily, the Russians have enough specialists to be able to respond here: http://telnews.ru/event/16133, but the harm from such quotes is bigger than the benefits. What I wanted to find out is if Wolfgang has been authorized by Nitin Desai to speak as his special adviser, as he is quoted as such. Because that means, Wolfgang, that you are not saying just your opinion, but also Nitin's, and the IGF. I also wonder what you had in mind here: "The proposal for 'Russian internet' would look at how they can communicate better inside the country. The internationalised domain name gives them an opportunity to do things which are now being tested in China, where they are currently using Chinese characters for three top-level domains: .net, .com and .cn." As the .rf (in Cyrillic) is actually aiming not for internal usage, but to have it for all users. As for China - they have that no on the top-level domain level, but on the second and third level. I hope you were misquoted, as the article sounded full with misquotes? best, veni At 17:44 03.01.2008 -0800, you wrote: >Hi all, > >For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the >last couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the >Russian-language part of the net - and its >aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely >independent from the wider web." See: > >Kremlin eyes internet control ... >The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields >and undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government >is pushing for greater control over the Russian-language part of the >net - and its aim seems to be to create a web that operates in >Cyrillic, completely independent from the wider web. > >The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII >suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of >Paraguay. That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim >Davies, who controls the domain names at the international domain >naming agency Icann told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top >level domain name of .ru in Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Jan 10 10:08:42 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:08:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050801100708s788fa3b1n2d085ebbf14635ba@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for direction to this (your) encyclopedic website. Inadvertant / Incidental reference of course [ ;) ] but a real boon to the reader. Best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 1/3/08, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > For those who haven't seen the report, The Guardian reported in the last > couple of days of Russia's desire "for greater control over the > Russian-language part of the net - and its > aim seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > independent from the wider web." See: > > Kremlin eyes internet control ... > The growing cold war with Russia has a new front besides oil fields and > undersea territorial claims: the internet. Russia's government is pushing > for greater control over the Russian-language part of the net - and its aim > seems to be to create a web that operates in Cyrillic, completely > independent from the wider web. > > The problem for Russia is that its top-level domain - with the ASCII > suffix .ru - translates into Cyrillic as .py, the domain name of Paraguay. > That could pose security problems for Russian users. Kim Davies, who > controls the domain names at the international domain naming agency Icann > told the Guardian: "Russia has a second top level domain name of .ru in > Ascii code, but is pushing for .rf in Cyrillic." > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/03/internet.censorship > > Of course, those who check out my website will have already seen the link > (shameless self promotion I know!). See http://technewsreview.com.au/ > > Cheers > David > > --------- > David Goldstein > address: 4/3 Abbott Street > COOGEE NSW 2034 > AUSTRALIA > email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au > phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) > > "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time > you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail > now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Thu Jan 10 10:14:14 2008 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:14:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement Message-ID: <20080110151701.CE58C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09jan08.htm ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers today made its formal submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce. The submission▓s main point is that the conclusion of the JPA would be a further step in the transition envisioned since ICANN was established ≈ one of moving the Domain Name System to private-sector co-ordination. "Ending the JPA will provide long-term stability and security for a model that works," stated Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush in the ICANN Board submission. "It will provide confidence to all participants that the investment of time, thought and energy for over nine years has secured an Internet coordination body that will always be owned by all stakeholders, not managed or overseen by any one entity." The U.S. Government has been committed to the transition of the DNS to the private sector since 1998. Over this time there have been seven Memorandums of Understanding between ICANN and the USG, and 13 status reports measuring ICANN▓s progress. The submission also states that the completion of the JPA will clearly signal that JPA and the MOUs before it have been successful. "This success should be commemorated," Dengate Thrush stated in the Board▓s submission. ICANN▓s Board is encouraging the Internet Community to take part in the Midterm Review before the 15 February 2008 deadline for submissions. If you continue to believe, in full transition of the domain name system to the private sector, and in an Internet that is co-ordinated not controlled, now is the time to say so and be a part of the next step in that transition. ICANN▓s entire submission to the Midterm Review [PDF,101K] including a table outlining the organization▓s achievements on the 10 responsibilities of the JPA [PDF, 469K], is publicly available at http://icann.org. A link to the Department of Commerce▓s Midterm Review is available online at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/ICANN_JPA_110207.html. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Jan 10 09:50:35 2008 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:50:35 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20080110151845.C02FF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> I'd like to use this mailing list, in one of my last emails here, to ask the participants to be extremely careful when they give interviews, esp. to the mass media. One of the key issues is to ask the journalists to quote you exactly what you said, and not to interpret. And the second is, to make sure they know who you represent - yourself, your institution, or something else. Such wrong quotes cause a lot of problems, and these are not limited to Russia, where - luckily - we have enough friends and colleagues, who understand when an error is being made. Also, if something like that happens, make sure you send a request to the editors for corrections. I have had such experience with the International Herald Tribune, and I know they do publish corrections. It would be strange if The Guardian wouldn't do this. best, Veni At 14:50 10.01.2008 +0100, KleinwДchter, Wolfgang wrote: >Veni > >I am also disappointed from the article. The >author promised me to send quotations to me >before the publication. He did not. He >misunderstood a lot of details and mixed >different things to a muddy soup to justify his >main argument: The Kremlin wants to censor the >Internet. I urged him to be very precise and to >make a clear difference between real facts, >current politics and speculations by some groups >in the Russian government and elsewhere around >"options". I asked him also to quote ms as >university of aarhus and not as IGF. > >Unfortunately it is obviously risky to acept telephone interviews. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 10:29:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:59:11 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <20080110151845.C02FF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080110151845.C02FF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <000d01c8539d$8e84ae10$ab8e0a30$@net> Veni Markovski wrote: > I'd like to use this mailing list, in one of my > last emails here, to ask the participants to be > extremely careful when they give interviews, esp. to the mass media. Try to pick the journalists you talk to. For the others, do email interviews and keep copies of the email for your records. I am sure Kieren would be glad to pitch in with some practical insights on how best to do this. Regards 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 narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jan 10 12:51:21 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:51:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> References: <20080105211908.GA32406@sources.org> Message-ID: <200801101751.m0AHpLfp008755@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > I see what ICANN obtains. I'm very unsure about the gains for ISC. Have a look at http://www.icann.org/froot/ICANN-ISC-MRA-26dec07.pdf and judge for yourself. (The actual MRA wasn't included in the original announcement, but is up now.) > Was it a necessary condition to obtain the announcement of ISC IPv6 > addresses in the root-servers.net zone? > (http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-December/002192.html) This is complete FUD. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Jan 10 14:24:15 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:24:15 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <000d01c8539d$8e84ae10$ab8e0a30$@net> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080110151845.C02FF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <000d01c8539d$8e84ae10$ab8e0a30$@net> Message-ID: <478670DF.9@rits.org.br> Usually it is the journalist who picks you, of course, not the other way around (I do not think even Giselle Bündchen can manage to pick the journalists she wants to talk to :)). Wolf, do not despair: even with interviews via email, some editors tend to distort facts and opinions to favor a certain view. The journalist who interviews is not necessarily to blame, the editor above him/her is usually the manipulator... Some media will also use your letter of correction to do a treplica and make things worse... [] fraterno --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Veni Markovski wrote: > >> I'd like to use this mailing list, in one of my >> last emails here, to ask the participants to be >> extremely careful when they give interviews, esp. to the mass media. > > Try to pick the journalists you talk to. For the others, do email interviews > and keep copies of the email for your records. > > I am sure Kieren would be glad to pitch in with some practical insights on > how best to do this. > > Regards > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Jan 10 14:31:25 2008 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:31:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! Message-ID: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> I am leaving this mailing list as of today. It has become a place where people come with opinions, which often are not constructive, but critical for the sake of criticism. I feel I would be more productive and will contribute at other relevant mailing lists and places, where people discuss ideas in a friendly, constructive, and positive way. I wish you all (yes, all) good time in 2008, and beyond. Best, Veni http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Jan 10 16:02:05 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:02:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] FYI: ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement In-Reply-To: <20080110151701.CE58C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20080110151701.CE58C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Can you please clarify exactly what this "conclusion" means? Would it mean that DoC/NTIA completely removes whatever (weak) oversight it currently has, and that ICANN's only "oversight" is from generic law governing NPOs in the US and in California (such as the federal section 501 statute and CA laws of NP incorporation)? So ICANN would cease to be a quasi-governmental entity in direct connection to the US federal administration? Or is this something less dramatic? Dan At 10:14 AM -0500 1/10/08, Veni Markovski wrote: >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09jan08.htm > >ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm >Review of the Joint Project Agreement > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers today made its >formal submission to the Midterm Review of the >Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and >the United States Department of Commerce. > >The submission?s main point is that the >conclusion of the JPA would be a further step in >the transition envisioned since ICANN was >established ‰ one of moving the Domain Name >System to private-sector co-ordination. > >"Ending the JPA will provide long-term stability >and security for a model that works," stated >Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush in the ICANN Board >submission. "It will provide confidence to all >participants that the investment of time, thought >and energy for over nine years has secured an >Internet coordination body that will always be >owned by all stakeholders, not managed or overseen by any one entity." > >The U.S. Government has been committed to the >transition of the DNS to the private sector since >1998. Over this time there have been seven >Memorandums of Understanding between ICANN and >the USG, and 13 status reports measuring ICANN?s progress. > >The submission also states that the completion of >the JPA will clearly signal that JPA and the MOUs >before it have been successful. > >"This success should be commemorated," Dengate >Thrush stated in the Board?s submission. > >ICANN?s Board is encouraging the Internet >Community to take part in the Midterm Review >before the 15 February 2008 deadline for submissions. > >If you continue to believe, in full transition of >the domain name system to the private sector, and >in an Internet that is co-ordinated not >controlled, now is the time to say so and be a >part of the next step in that transition. > >ICANN?s entire submission to the Midterm Review >[PDF,101K] including a table outlining the >organization?s achievements on the 10 >responsibilities of the JPA [PDF, 469K], is >publicly available at http://icann.org. > >A link to the Department of Commerce?s Midterm >Review is available online at >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/ICANN_JPA_110207.html. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 10 20:28:27 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:58:27 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Kremlin eyes internet control ... In-Reply-To: <478670DF.9@rits.org.br> References: <408975.88093.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080110113336.14FA22BC006@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080110151845.C02FF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <000d01c8539d$8e84ae10$ab8e0a30$@net> <478670DF.9@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <000401c853f1$48bfc410$da3f4c30$@net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > Usually it is the journalist who picks you, of course, not the other > way around (I do not think even Giselle Bündchen can manage to pick the > journalists she wants to talk to :)). Well, having spoken to and been quoted by journalists several times before, I do agree you have a point. But well, for journalists you don't know personally or by reputation, the best way to go is email. There's much less chance of being misquoted that way. Sure, you can't eliminate the chance, especially when the reporter has an agenda, but.. And you know which reporters (or occasionally which papers) to avoid in future. Not like a supermodel who absolutely has to talk to every single paper that approaches her on the grounds that any publicity is good publicity :) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Jan 10 20:44:21 2008 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:44:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <4AEDD34F-AF25-4F25-9BF5-4CED3E7F835F@Malcolm.id.au> References: <020601c85278$abcbc330$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4AEDD34F-AF25-4F25-9BF5-4CED3E7F835F@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 9-Jan-08, at 6:36 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/01/2008, at 1:32 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> ..... As regards the full complement of representatives who might >> broadly be seen to represent various aspects of civil society, we >> believe it is the best interests of stakeholder balance, >> transparent operation and reporting, and involvement of a wider >> group of stakeholders, that at least 75% of the civil society >> representatives be chosen from a broad range of candidates >> submitted by the Civil Society Caucus." > > ...... The IGC is a very elite group, and I think it is vain of us > to think that we can represent civil society. Most ordinary > Internet users have never heard of the IGF or WSIS, and aside from > the geeks who might join the Internet Society, are not going to > have a voice if the civil society representation on the MAG is to > be constituted by IGC and ISOC nominees. I'd like to add a general reflection on just how broad the gap in "representation" between the elite and the ordinary actually is. I do this from a Canadian perspective, the one country where I have at least some up-close experience of the state of play of related public policy, such as it is. There an absence of public debate in Canada about what some Canadians call "Telecom Policy," and some Americans call "Network Neutrality, and what this list probably ought to mean by "Internet Governance," all facets of the same gem. This is true at all levels of government, but the absence is most startling at the local government level. About a year ago, I shepherded the application of Telecommunities Canada to become an ICANN "At Large Structure." Telecommunities Canada then acted in cooperation with other organizations to assist in the North American RALO”s formation, the last remaining stone in ICANN's ALAC arch to be hoisted into place. There were some quite reasonable objections to Telecommunities Canada's application, technically related to its form of organization under the existing ALAC rules. In fact, I think it's fair to say the debate over Telecommunities Canada's application in particular was a sort of catalyst for the NARALO's formation. Telecommunities Canada was certainly used as a key example in the changing of the application rules. Or to put that another way, just by showing up we already have exercised some influence on ICANN. That part wasn't so hard. But we'd got in in order to get out. There were also some quite reasonable cautions that the ALAC's highly specialized (i.e. elite) agendas probably weren't going to be of interest to TC. In the short term, that's certainly proving to be true. We plunged into the ALAC because we assumed there was some potential to gain leverage in addressing the way that Internet Governance issues will impact on telecommunications policy reform in Canada. And, if there is a way to do that, we haven't found it yet. Telecommunities Canada saw ICANN participation as a means to an end, and not an end in itself. We have our own need to act, and to be seen acting, to involve Canadians in public policy issues related to Internet Governance and to the role of the Internet in Canada's socio- economic development and political evolution. But those who said that our leap of faith in the potential utility of ICANN participation was too great were entirely correct, at least in the short term. The idea of standing before a municipal council in Canada, even one contemplating an open fibre network, and explaining a current list of ICANN issues (or the issues usually addressed on this list) simply boggles the mind. Canadian politicians at all levels of government are well aware that there is no public concern or even interest, and they therefore feel no need to add anything to the public policy agenda. And yet, to me, those are exactly the "forums" where the real "Internet Governance" issues need to be addressed. We have all become utterly reliant on a public utility without the slightest notion of what it actually does or how it works. I was encouraged to learn that the President of ICANN, Vint Cerf, speaking at the NARALO/ICANN MOU signing ceremony, saw Internet Governance issues in far broader terms. Referring specifically to the outreach responsibilities, he noted the ALAC's essential role in “communicating the meaning of the internet's evolution in the context of a collaborative ecology.” There is nothing narrow or "merely technical" in initiating and engaging in public dialogue that takes a collaborative ecology into account. I haven't yet got the nerve to try that idea out with a municipal council, but I think I might. > > Whilst what is needed in the longer term is a serious programme of > outreach to ordinary Internet users, ........ In a country as connected as Canada, there is another word for "ordinary Internet users." They are called citizens. Because the best route across that enormous gap most likely lurks in the concept of use, we are looking for the points of common interest that will focus their concerns. Telecommunities Canada advocates for control of open broadband networks as a local responsibility. But, in thinking about how to support public dialogue about that responsibility, this is leading us to raise a broader question first - a very basic question that still gets ignored in Canada. In "the longer term," it still seems to me that the real heart of Internet Governance becomes the need to ask - In our digital age, what kind of a society do we want? GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cpsr at ewilliger.com Fri Jan 11 04:00:16 2008 From: cpsr at ewilliger.com (e-cpsr) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:00:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008 11:31 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > I am leaving this mailing list as of today. > > It has become a place where people come with opinions, which often > are not constructive, but critical for the sake of criticism. > I feel I would be more productive and will contribute at other > relevant mailing lists and places, where people discuss ideas in a > friendly, constructive, and positive way. > > I wish you all (yes, all) good time in 2008, and beyond. Oh dear. And i just joined this list a few weeks ago. I hope that it will be useful as well as civil. But, before you go, might i ask what other "relevant mailing lists and places" there are? If you don't want to start a flame war here, please reply personally. I am asking publicly because this is usually a sign that a list's usefulness is questionable, at least. I think we should have alternatives to compare to. And, yes, good luck to all. -- eden ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 11 09:43:11 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:43:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Too bad, so long, Veni. But I disagree. Some of the "non-constructive" interactions are partialy, at least, due to your own approach, not of others. Even you don't share the same opinon, or because of you don't, there should be constructive ways to make it to happen. And I remain optimistic wihthin this civil society caucus that we will be productive, constructive, even quite often critical each other. respectfully, izumi 2008/1/11, e-cpsr : > On Jan 10, 2008 11:31 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > > I am leaving this mailing list as of today. > > > > It has become a place where people come with opinions, which often > > are not constructive, but critical for the sake of criticism. > > I feel I would be more productive and will contribute at other > > relevant mailing lists and places, where people discuss ideas in a > > friendly, constructive, and positive way. > > > > I wish you all (yes, all) good time in 2008, and beyond. > > Oh dear. And i just joined this list a few weeks ago. I hope that > it will be useful as well as civil. > > But, before you go, might i ask what other "relevant mailing lists > and places" there are? If you don't want to start a flame war here, > please reply personally. I am asking publicly because this is usually > a sign that a list's usefulness is questionable, at least. I think we > should have alternatives to compare to. > > And, yes, good luck to all. > > -- > eden > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jan 11 10:01:12 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:01:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> Izumi AIZU [11/01/08 23:43 +0900]: >Some of the "non-constructive" interactions are partialy, at least, >due to your own approach, not of others. Even you don't share the >same opinon, or because of you don't, there should be constructive >ways to make it to happen. And I remain optimistic wihthin this >civil society caucus that we will be productive, constructive, even >quite often critical each other. Izumi san, I am afraid I must disagree here. Veni's been blunt - but he's been honest. "Civil Society" should not preclude calling a spade a spade. He does get blunt reactions in return, and well, so far I felt the discussion was spirited but civil. Certainly no innuendo and wordsmithing there in any of his responses. regards 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 11 10:46:10 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:46:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] goodbye! References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Veni we will miss you. Wolfgang BTW, there are no legal restrictions for re-subscribing anytime. The list is open, transparent and bottom up. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 11:21:57 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:51:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Please confirm: [auth [removed] signoff governance suresh@hserus.net] Message-ID: <000b01c8546e$17b765d0$47263170$@net> Now what kind soul was this? Got three emails like the one below. srs -----Original Message----- From: NPOGroups List Manager [mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:49 PM To: suresh at hserus.net Subject: Please confirm: [auth [removed] signoff governance suresh at hserus.net] Someone (hopefully you) requested that your e-mail address be removed from the list "governance at lists.cpsr.org". To be removed, please - reply to this mail without changing the Subject line OR - send a message to sympa at lists.cpsr.org with this subject line: auth [removed] signoff governance suresh at hserus.net OR - do that more easily by clicking on the following link: mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=auth%20removed%20signoff%20governance%20 suresh at hserus.net If you do not want to be removed, just ignore this message. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Jan 11 11:56:11 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: 20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: Bye Veni, We will miss you. I can relate to your feeling. We all grow tiresome at some point and need our space. As an 'Advocate', I always felt you compelled your arguments well. And you're right, People sometimes don't understand the difference between what goes on the Courtroom Floor and an Advocate's Personal Opinions. The Media/Press tends to be the first to violate this respect. In regards to Bulgaria, You are one-of-three people know who speak upon the Bulgarian behalf. Having traveled your Country, I know her people need as much help as they can get. Not unlike so many other Countries as well. You have our understanding and best of luck ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 11:55:02 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:55:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement References: <20080110151701.CE58C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD97562CC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Dan: Ending the JPA simply means that the USG withdraws from one form of oversight, but retains the IANA contract. The JPA (like the MoUs before it) is a bit more prescriptive and explicit in its policy guidance. It is good to get rid of it. The issue of the IANA contract is far more fundamental; that is what gives the USG life and death power over ICANN. ICANN's lack of accountability to its public remains a problem, of course. Removing the JPA does not, as far as I can tell, afftect that either negatively or positively. It removes one lever that the USG has for imposing accountability on the organization, but we want ICANN to be accountable to the Internet public, not to the USG. And it is difficult to argue that the US Gov serves as a suitable proxy for the global public interest. ________________________________ From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Thu 1/10/2008 4:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FYI: ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement Can you please clarify exactly what this "conclusion" means? Would it mean that DoC/NTIA completely removes whatever (weak) oversight it currently has, and that ICANN's only "oversight" is from generic law governing NPOs in the US and in California (such as the federal section 501 statute and CA laws of NP incorporation)? So ICANN would cease to be a quasi-governmental entity in direct connection to the US federal administration? Or is this something less dramatic? Dan At 10:14 AM -0500 1/10/08, Veni Markovski wrote: >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09jan08.htm > >ICANN Releases Its Submission to the Midterm >Review of the Joint Project Agreement > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers today made its >formal submission to the Midterm Review of the >Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and >the United States Department of Commerce. > >The submission?s main point is that the >conclusion of the JPA would be a further step in >the transition envisioned since ICANN was >established ? one of moving the Domain Name >System to private-sector co-ordination. > >"Ending the JPA will provide long-term stability >and security for a model that works," stated >Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush in the ICANN Board >submission. "It will provide confidence to all >participants that the investment of time, thought >and energy for over nine years has secured an >Internet coordination body that will always be >owned by all stakeholders, not managed or overseen by any one entity." > >The U.S. Government has been committed to the >transition of the DNS to the private sector since >1998. Over this time there have been seven >Memorandums of Understanding between ICANN and >the USG, and 13 status reports measuring ICANN?s progress. > >The submission also states that the completion of >the JPA will clearly signal that JPA and the MOUs >before it have been successful. > >"This success should be commemorated," Dengate >Thrush stated in the Board?s submission. > >ICANN?s Board is encouraging the Internet >Community to take part in the Midterm Review >before the 15 February 2008 deadline for submissions. > >If you continue to believe, in full transition of >the domain name system to the private sector, and >in an Internet that is co-ordinated not >controlled, now is the time to say so and be a >part of the next step in that transition. > >ICANN?s entire submission to the Midterm Review >[PDF,101K] including a table outlining the >organization?s achievements on the 10 >responsibilities of the JPA [PDF, 469K], is >publicly available at http://icann.org . > >A link to the Department of Commerce?s Midterm >Review is available online at >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/ICANN_JPA_110207.html. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7515 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 12:01:19 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:01:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 1/11/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Veni > > we will miss you. > > Wolfgang > > > BTW, there are no legal restrictions for re-subscribing anytime. The list is open, transparent and bottom up. Wouldn't it be more transparent if we got an source IP address reported from the listware when someone tries to unsub us (a la Suresh today?). There is a knob for that on most listware, who can turn 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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Jan 11 12:21:59 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:21:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: Please confirm: [auth [removed] signoff governance suresh@hserus.net] In-Reply-To: <000b01c8546e$17b765d0$47263170$@net> References: <000b01c8546e$17b765d0$47263170$@net> Message-ID: <4787A5B7.5000500@rits.org.br> It is a wandering soul... or some bad creature is trying to throw you out of the list! ;) --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Now what kind soul was this? Got three emails like the one below. > > srs > > -----Original Message----- > From: NPOGroups List Manager [mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:49 PM > To: suresh at hserus.net > Subject: Please confirm: [auth [removed] signoff governance > suresh at hserus.net] > > Someone (hopefully you) requested that your e-mail address be removed > from the list "governance at lists.cpsr.org". > > To be removed, please > > - reply to this mail without changing the Subject line > OR > - send a message to sympa at lists.cpsr.org with this subject line: > auth [removed] signoff governance suresh at hserus.net > OR > - do that more easily by clicking on the following link: > > mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=auth%20removed%20signoff%20governance%20 > suresh at hserus.net > > If you do not want to be removed, just ignore this message. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jan 11 13:47:49 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:47:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: hi, i am one of those who manage the list. but i don't understand what it is you want. btw, i think Veni is already off he list and may not see the note people are sending him. thanks a. On 11 Jan 2008, at 12:01, McTim wrote: > On 1/11/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > wrote: >> Veni >> >> we will miss you. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> BTW, there are no legal restrictions for re-subscribing anytime. >> The list is open, transparent and bottom up. > > Wouldn't it be more transparent if we got an source IP address > reported > from the listware when someone tries to unsub us (a la Suresh today?). > > There is a knob for that on most listware, who can turn 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 13:55:25 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:55:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: At 1:00 AM -0800 1/11/08, e-cpsr wrote: >On Jan 10, 2008 11:31 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: >> I am leaving this mailing list as of today. >> >> It has become a place where people come with opinions, which often >> are not constructive, but critical for the sake of criticism. >> I feel I would be more productive and will contribute at other >> relevant mailing lists and places, where people discuss ideas in a >> friendly, constructive, and positive way. >> >> I wish you all (yes, all) good time in 2008, and beyond. > > Oh dear. And i just joined this list a few weeks ago. I hope that >it will be useful as well as civil. > > But, before you go, might i ask what other "relevant mailing lists >and places" there are? If you don't want to start a flame war here, >please reply personally. I am asking publicly because this is usually >a sign that a list's usefulness is questionable, at least. I think we >should have alternatives to compare to. This list is a little on the ornery side compared to others in general, but I find it to be about typical of lists with participants from a relatively wide range of views on matters of some real importance. "Civil Society" is a fairly broad category, and Internet Governance is an area that has potential to affect literally every person on the planet, moving forward. More easy-going lists tend to be composed of more homogeneous communities, either because the topic is narrow or because the participants share most important values. This list is more diverse than average, and adds an intrinsic and ineliminable political component that stirs the waters. There are several major points of contention: - Who should be involved in IG at this time? (Only "technical experts" or a broader constituency?) - Where should the venues of IG be located and how should they be politically structured? (ICANN? ITU? WGIG/WSIS/IGF? WIPO? etc.?) - ICANN looms large here because of its direct technical mandate over IP addressing and DNS, and because its governance structure is still new and still somewhat in flux (it has a tendency to spread out to policy that is not strictly technical in nature, and defining the boundaries of its political domain seems to have been contested from the get-go -- it certain remains contested today, big-time). There are still arguments about legitimacy of representation, process and oversight with regard to ICANN, and those tend to generate the most disputes, frustrations, and sparks. My guess is that Veni was mainly referring to criticisms of ICANN in particular. However, his characterization of "critical for the sake of criticism" is highly subjective and many here would disagree. Take it for what it's worth that Veni has been involved in a relatively large proportion of whatever flaming about ICANN occurs on-list, at least in the year or so that I've been on the list myself. My own take on the list is that it can require a thick skin from time to time, but there is nowhere else that brings together exactly this mix of CS folks interested and importantly involved in IG (especially the IGC does a lot of work here, but others may join as well, AIUI), and the utility of the information and discourse that flows through here is well worth the occasional volatility. These are contentious issues, and ultimately there is no getting around that. Bottom line: I've seen worse, with much less upside utility. For myself, it's a clear net benefit to stay around, if one is truly engaged in the issues discussed here. For IGC members, I would expect it is simply a requirement, in order to stay abreast of important communications of a logistical and organizing nature. Dan PS -- Veni may have thought he was "taking his ball and going home" but while he may go home, the ball stays here. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 17:54:33 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:54:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 1/11/08, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > i am one of those who manage the list. but i don't understand what it > is you want. smt like this: Mailing list unsubscription confirmation notice for mailing list xyz We have received a request from x.x.x.x for unsubscription of your email address, "dogwallah at gmail.com", to the xyz at xyz.org mailing list. To confirm that you want to be unsubs..... > > > btw, i think Veni is already off he list and may not see the note > people are sending him. My thoughts exactly! -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Jan 11 19:33:35 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:33:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Feld on network management Message-ID: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/988 "Can users shape traffic better than ISPs?" The inimitable Harold Feld weighs in on network management with an interesting idea that I haven't seen before: If anyone has to do it (and for Feld that's still a *big* "if"), the proper way is to empower users to do it. (That is, to mandate that ISPs empower their users to do it, 'cause ISPs certainly won't do it -- i.e., give up the control -- on their own recognizance.) This is the kind of thing that regulation is best used for, and it honors the nondiscriminatory principles of common carriage, as well as the user-driven dynamics of a genuinely competitive market. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jan 11 19:36:20 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:36:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: hi, oh. it is already set to do that. i am not sure what the message says, but it does request confirmation and it does notify the list maintainers. a. On 11 Jan 2008, at 17:54, McTim wrote: > On 1/11/08, Avri Doria wrote: >> hi, >> >> i am one of those who manage the list. but i don't understand what >> it >> is you want. > > smt like this: > Mailing list unsubscription confirmation notice for mailing list xyz > > We have received a request from x.x.x.x for unsubscription of your > email address, "dogwallah at gmail.com", to the xyz at xyz.org mailing > list. To confirm that you want to be unsubs..... > >> >> >> btw, i think Veni is already off he list and may not see the note >> people are sending him. > > My thoughts exactly! > > -- > 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Jan 11 20:41:49 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:41:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Feld on network management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47881ADD.2060609@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > If anyone has to do it (and for Feld that's still a *big* "if"), the proper > way is to empower users to do it. Path control from the edges is somewhat akin to using a limp rope to push a heavy spherical stone up a steep mountain. Hard, but, in theory, not impossible. And the idea of clueless user fingers reaching into the delicate innards of carrier networks is something that providers, rightfully, have reason to fear. Not trying to proselytize but merely to illustrate one method (of many): I have a product, via my company, InterWorking Labs, that is designed to, well, to "empower users", at least to a limited extent and with reasonably fair minded providers along the data path. What we do is give the user the means to shape outgoing traffic (and very, very indirectly shape incoming traffic) according to one of several different typical usage "profiles". (We call it "Speedbump" because the main idea is to slow non-critical things down a bit so that congestion of the critical flows can be avoided.) One of the hard things is that there are piles of queues in typical consumer gear. So one of the things we try to do is to slightly underrun the actual outgoing bandwidth so that the queues build up where the user can control 'em rather than in some, usually provider provided, opaque box. Way back when, as a result of my work in the late 1990's creating IP/TV, I proposed a protocol to help measure and ascertain path conditions so that the binding of clients to servers, path selection, and path management could be done intelligently. See http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000151.html and http://www.cavebear.com/archive/fpcp/fpcp-sept-19-2000.html That, incomplete, protocol, however, wasn't the kind of thing that could be done from the edges - it needed hooks in the routers along the path. (I was in the Cisco's CTO's Advanced Internet Architectures group at that time, so the notion of getting it into a large number of internet routers wasn't as wild as it might otherwise have been.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jan 11 20:48:48 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:48:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> Avri Doria [11/01/08 19:36 -0500]: > hi, > > oh. it is already set to do that. > i am not sure what the message says, but it does request confirmation and > it does notify the list maintainers. What McTim wants is for that message to log the IP address of the requestor as well (instead of saying someone submitted a request, it says someone from [ip.add.re.ss] submitted a request) You should be able to find who this was (at least, what his IP was) from the mailing list / webserver logs .. ask the Electric Embers people for help (they host the cpsr lists for quite some time now, ever since cpsr moved off their old / legacy mailman platform) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 20:49:44 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:49:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Please confirm: [auth [removed] signoff governance suresh@hserus.net] In-Reply-To: <4787A5B7.5000500@rits.org.br> References: <000b01c8546e$17b765d0$47263170$@net> <4787A5B7.5000500@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080112014944.GC4498@hserus.net> Carlos Afonso [11/01/08 15:21 -0200]: > It is a wandering soul... or some bad creature is trying to throw you out > of the list! ;) I can tell. But I never did like my spirits to be nameless :) 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 09:10:44 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:10:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh wrote,"You should be able to find who this was (at least, what his IP was) from the mailing list / webserver logs .. ask the Electric Embers people for help (they host the cpsr lists for quite some time now, ever since cpsr moved off their old / legacy mailman platform)" I agree to that and call for quick action else we should be leading to a situation where we can see people fronting to smear or slander on this list. Imagine a slander message appearing on this with the warning "someone wrote this in your name" Before posting suchee a message, the managers would have at least crossed checked with Suresh to get clearance at least. Let's call a spade a spade: someone did not do his work well and assume his/her responsibility by openly coming out to appologize to Suresh. Afterall, to err is human, unless... On 1/12/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Avri Doria [11/01/08 19:36 -0500]: > > hi, > > > > oh. it is already set to do that. > > i am not sure what the message says, but it does request confirmation > and > > it does notify the list maintainers. > > What McTim wants is for that message to log the IP address of the > requestor > as well (instead of saying someone submitted a request, it says someone > from [ip.add.re.ss] submitted a request) > > You should be able to find who this was (at least, what his IP was) from > the mailing list / webserver logs .. ask the Electric Embers people for > help (they host the cpsr lists for quite some time now, ever since cpsr > moved off their old / legacy mailman platform) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jan 12 10:40:28 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:40:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080112154028.GA30736@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [12/01/08 15:10 +0100]: >I agree to that and call for quick action else we should be leading to a >situation where we can see people fronting to smear or slander on this list. >Imagine a slander message appearing on this with the warning "someone wrote >this in your name" Aaron, it is not as much a question of slander as a question of just how juvenile someone who presumably reads this list can get. Forged unsubscribe requests is something I would have expected from an entirely different class of mailing list. Anyway .. 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jan 12 11:02:17 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:02:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080110193134.C77EF2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> On 12 Jan 2008, at 09:10, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > the managers would have at least crossed checked with Suresh to get > clearance at least. > Let's call a spade a spade: someone did not do his work well and > assume his/her responsibility by openly coming out to appologize to > Suresh. Afterall, to err is human, unless... i admit my fault for being a bad list maintainer an for being someone who did not do her work well. and i apologize and accept responsibility for my deficiency as a maintainer of email lists. i will give up that role to someone more competent immediately. in fact our two coordinators are also list maintainers, and i will leave he role to them in the future. is this a satisfactory apology? thank you a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jan 12 11:11:35 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:11:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> References: <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> Avri Doria [12/01/08 11:02 -0500]: > > i will give up that role to someone more competent immediately. > in fact our two coordinators are also list maintainers, and i will leave he > role to them in the future. > > is this a satisfactory apology? > Avri, please be assured that I was not casting aspersions on your competence and your excellent track record in keeping this list - with all its diverse opinions - a going concern. I am sure Aaron isnt either, cant speak for him, but I would imagine that he isnt criticizing you as much as he is whoever did this. 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jan 12 11:36:46 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:36:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> References: <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> Message-ID: <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> Hi, Thank you. But I am not competent as a list maintainer. For example now I am getting a multitude of unsubscribes, but as they are all from an address other then one that is subscribed they are being rejected. I really should trace this down and figure out what is going on, but i just don't have the time. So having made a public error and been called to accountability, it seems an opportune time to turn this task over to others. I have been the li maintainer for many years, and perhaps this is a good time for someone els to take on the job. And really I have enough volunteer tasks in my life that if there is someone who is more competent who wishes to do the job and is acceptable to the caucus, i will gladly step away. a. On 12 Jan 2008, at 11:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Avri Doria [12/01/08 11:02 -0500]: >> >> i will give up that role to someone more competent immediately. >> in fact our two coordinators are also list maintainers, and i will >> leave he role to them in the future. >> >> is this a satisfactory apology? >> > > Avri, please be assured that I was not casting aspersions on your > competence and your excellent track record in keeping this list - > with all > its diverse opinions - a going concern. > > I am sure Aaron isnt either, cant speak for him, but I would imagine > that > he isnt criticizing you as much as he is whoever did this. > > 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 Sat Jan 12 11:45:08 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:15:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> References: <20080111150112.GA13289@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DEEE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> Message-ID: <005001c8553a$7f84c190$7e8e44b0$@net> Avri Doria wrote: > Thank you. But I am not competent as a list maintainer. For example > now I am getting a multitude of unsubscribes, but as they are all from > an address other then one that is subscribed they are being rejected. Tell you the truth .. as this is hosted on a third party application there is not much at all that you can do to handle the problem you describe. Even when you run the list server, chances are you will still run into the problem if only because people might sign up from a yahoo account, forget and then send an unsub request from their gmail account, or something similar. That is entirely secondary to the moderation of the list - for which a loose rein, an awareness of the subject and a good rapport with quite a few of the people on the list helps - you have all that, in spades, which makes you ideal. Of course, if you have to step down because of other commitments, that is entirely your prerogative .. but I would prefer that you not step down in the belief that you were being called to account for someone else's juvenile behavior. 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 12:39:57 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:39:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: <005001c8553a$7f84c190$7e8e44b0$@net> References: <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> <005001c8553a$7f84c190$7e8e44b0$@net> Message-ID: Avri No, you do not just have to go away like that! I am not as qualified as Suresh is in qualifying people. It is this erratic approach that scares people away from the list. A careful look at the messages of those leaving the list will not proof me wrong. My response may have been "JUVENILE" but it bothered more on some small management errors (we commit many in our daily activities) which I pointed out. I wasn't hushing you out (Suresh specializes on that) of the time consuming work that you have been doing for this list. I just thought that one of you Managers should come up and say, may be say time was not available for proper monitoring. The outcome of such an apology will to wipe out the sentiments that people may have that list Managers as being party to such activities. Warmly Aaron On 1/12/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > Thank you. But I am not competent as a list maintainer. For example > > now I am getting a multitude of unsubscribes, but as they are all from > > an address other then one that is subscribed they are being rejected. > > Tell you the truth .. as this is hosted on a third party application there > is not much at all that you can do to handle the problem you describe. > > Even when you run the list server, chances are you will still run into the > problem if only because people might sign up from a yahoo account, forget > and then send an unsub request from their gmail account, or something > similar. > > That is entirely secondary to the moderation of the list - for which a > loose > rein, an awareness of the subject and a good rapport with quite a few of > the > people on the list helps - you have all that, in spades, which makes you > ideal. > > Of course, if you have to step down because of other commitments, that is > entirely your prerogative .. but I would prefer that you not step down in > the belief that you were being called to account for someone else's > juvenile > behavior. > > 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 > -- 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Sat Jan 12 16:24:40 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:24:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> <005001c8553a$7f84c190$7e8e44b0$@net> Message-ID: <2EAE2F83-4D88-40A0-A226-F962920E8CB1@psg.com> hi, Thanks. But it was a good wake up call. i will stick around until there is a replacement. but i think it is time someone else took over these duties. thanks a. On 12 Jan 2008, at 12:39, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Avri > > No, you do not just have to go away like that! > I am not as qualified as Suresh is in qualifying people. It is this > erratic approach that scares people away from the list. A careful > look at the messages of those leaving the list will not proof me > wrong. > My response may have been "JUVENILE" but it bothered more on some > small management errors (we commit many in our daily activities) > which I pointed out. I wasn't hushing you out (Suresh specializes on > that) of the time consuming work that you have been doing for this > list. > I just thought that one of you Managers should come up and say, may > be say time was not available for proper monitoring. The outcome of > such an apology will to wipe out the sentiments that people may have > that list Managers as being party to such activities. > > Warmly > > Aaron > > > On 1/12/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Avri > Doria wrote: > > > Thank you. But I am not competent as a list maintainer. For > example > > now I am getting a multitude of unsubscribes, but as they are all > from > > an address other then one that is subscribed they are being > rejected. > > Tell you the truth .. as this is hosted on a third party application > there > is not much at all that you can do to handle the problem you describe. > > Even when you run the list server, chances are you will still run > into the > problem if only because people might sign up from a yahoo account, > forget > and then send an unsub request from their gmail account, or something > similar. > > That is entirely secondary to the moderation of the list - for which > a loose > rein, an awareness of the subject and a good rapport with quite a > few of the > people on the list helps - you have all that, in spades, which makes > you > ideal. > > Of course, if you have to step down because of other commitments, > that is > entirely your prerogative .. but I would prefer that you not step > down in > the belief that you were being called to account for someone else's > juvenile > behavior. > > 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 > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 14 05:38:39 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:38:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] goodbye! In-Reply-To: References: <20080112014848.GB4498@hserus.net> <8D3F99AC-3A3A-43FD-9A41-0090E1ECED96@psg.com> <20080112161135.GB31507@hserus.net> <42815ECC-1D34-4B85-ADB7-E0EFEC23CFD5@psg.com> <005001c8553a$7f84c190$7e8e44b0$@net> Message-ID: Hi Avri, The pleasure is mine to get that from you. Aaron On 1/12/08, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > Avri > > No, you do not just have to go away like that! > I am not as qualified as Suresh is in qualifying people. It is this > erratic approach that scares people away from the list. A careful look at > the messages of those leaving the list will not proof me wrong. > My response may have been "JUVENILE" but it bothered more on some small > management errors (we commit many in our daily activities) which I pointed > out. I wasn't hushing you out (Suresh specializes on that) of the time > consuming work that you have been doing for this list. > I just thought that one of you Managers should come up and say, may be say > time was not available for proper monitoring. The outcome of such an > apology will to wipe out the sentiments that people may have that list > Managers as being party to such activities. > > Warmly > > Aaron > > > On 1/12/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Thank you. But I am not competent as a list maintainer. For example > > > now I am getting a multitude of unsubscribes, but as they are all from > > > > > an address other then one that is subscribed they are being rejected. > > > > Tell you the truth .. as this is hosted on a third party application > > there > > is not much at all that you can do to handle the problem you describe. > > > > Even when you run the list server, chances are you will still run into > > the > > problem if only because people might sign up from a yahoo account, > > forget > > and then send an unsub request from their gmail account, or something > > similar. > > > > That is entirely secondary to the moderation of the list - for which a > > loose > > rein, an awareness of the subject and a good rapport with quite a few of > > the > > people on the list helps - you have all that, in spades, which makes you > > > > ideal. > > > > Of course, if you have to step down because of other commitments, that > > is > > entirely your prerogative .. but I would prefer that you not step down > > in > > the belief that you were being called to account for someone else's > > juvenile > > behavior. > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > 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 > -- 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 14 09:50:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:20:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC review Message-ID: <20080114145057.0A3B4A6D26@smtp2.electricembers.net> IGC members, Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us – at least those of us who care enough about this group – to take up a comprehensive review of the IGC in a back-to-basics/ bare-all spirit. We need to examine what we are here for, how well we are doing it, and which direction should we go from here. We did very briefly try some such review during the face-to-face IGC meeting at Rio, but the time was too short for anything worthwhile, and the participants’ minds and energies were mostly occupied with what was happening in the IGF. However some concrete suggestions did come up, and I as a co-coordinator promised to initiate a discussion on the IGC email list on rethinking/ restructuring IGC. We all can see that there is a certain limbo that this group is at present caught in. Apart from some continued high quality discussions there appears to be not much will and/or energy vis-à-vis an activist advocacy role in this group, which is one of its primary mandate as per the charter adopted in 2005 ( pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). For instance, we are not making much progress towards developing a caucus position for the very important Feb. consultations for the IGF. I had given out a call seeking volunteers for the position of co-coordinator, and I have only received one name till now. Many members who had earlier been very involved in active advocacy kind of roles seem to have reduced their involvement and many other members who are very involved in discussions on this list seem to either not commit themselves to participating in activist roles of developing common positions etc, or they are unable yet to figure out the best way to do this. And I think it is a good time to find out the reasons for this situation in a constructive spirit of moving forward with a greater clarity of what is the best role for this group, and how can that be done most effectively. Such an exercise will help people shape their involvement (or, well, probably withdrawal of involvement) in this group. This in my opinion should be a time for all of us to come out clearly with how we see this group, and where do we want to take it from here. While this process may necessarily mean that many contentions would come out in the open, and we will try to figure out what best can we do about them, we hope that sufficient amount of civility is maintained in this process. This doesn’t mean we need to necessarily moderate our views – I think, for a start, we need some very open and honest discussion here – but only that we do not get personal and abusive. While I will come out with my personal views on this subject separately, in order to set the ball rolling I will mention some of my ‘more neutral’ viewpoints. I think that the politics of technologies (or ICTs) are impacting our societies in a major way, and unfortunately there is great lack of awareness (and, consequently, involvement) of the public at large about how the manner of development of these technologies may underlie the very shaping of our societies. IGC is one of few public interest groups at the global level that is active in this very important area. Lack of public interest advocacy and involvement, which is what our inactivity/ abdication will contribute to, will make for dominant interests shaping the world in manner that serves their interests even more. All of us who fear this possibility, while also seeing the opportunity in the new technologies for a freer as well as a more equal and just world, and have some knowledge, expertise and ‘positions/ connections/ linkages’ in this area, should sincerely explore how best can we further the public interest through this group. On the process side, IGC also represents a unique experiment in global civil society organization, and it is up to us to prove that such new networked forms of civil society organization and advocacy can be successful. Recent emails by Garth and Dan, among others, do discuss some of the issues mentioned above. Hopefully we can have some involved discussions in the next few weeks on these issues which may help us focus and structure IGC more purposefully. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Jan 14 12:40:27 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:40:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Launch Seminar of the GAID Latin American and Caribbean Regional Network - 4-5 February 2008, Radisson Hotel, San Salvador, El Salvador. Message-ID: <200801141739.m0EHdW5u014730@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the invitation to and the programme of the launch meeting of the GAID Latin American and Caribbean Regional Network (4-5 February 2008, San Salvador, El Salvador). It will be held back to back with the 2nd Ministerial Conference on the Information Society eLAC2007, 6-7-8 February 2008. Let me remind you that we continue to keep updated an informal calendar of post-WSIS related UN events and meetings at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. Best regards, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -----Message d'origine----- De : discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Enrica Murmura Envoyé : jeudi, 27. décembre 2007 21:09 À : discuss at un-gaid.org Cc : Caroline Perkin Objet : [gaid-discuss] Invitation to the Launch Seminar of the GAID Latin American and Caribbean Regional Network - 4-5 February 2008, Radisson Hotel, San Salvador, El Salvador. Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the Secretariat of the Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development (GAID) of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), and on behalf of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the International Development Research Centre - Institute for Connectivity in the Americas (IDRC-ICA), and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), we have the honor to invite you to the Launch Seminar of the GAID Latin American and Caribbean Regional Network to be held on 4-5 February 2008 at the Radisson Hotel in San Salvador, El Salvador, in the two days preceding the II Ministerial Conference on the Information Society eLAC2007 ( www.eLAC2007.org.sv) in San Salvador. The theme of the seminar is to formally launch the work of the Global Alliance in Latin America and Caribbean and discuss the activities and development of the regional network. The main objective of the seminar will be to gather ICT4D experts together to elaborate concrete proposals to present at the Ministerial Conference, in the areas of ICT and poverty eradication, health, education, youth employment, and e-government for improved accountability. In addition, the meeting will arrange exchanges and dialogues among the regional representatives of GAID, as well as provide a platform in the region to discuss strategic plans and share experiences and knowledge on the growth and development of the region in ICT. A draft preliminary agenda is attached for your information. For further information and assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Carolina Jara at ECLAC e-mail: Carolina.Jara at cepal.org or Ms. Enrica Murmura, Secretariat of GAID at e-mail: murmura at un.org. For additional information on the Seminar, please visit: http://www.un-gaid.org http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/noticias/4/32 074/P32074.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl-i/p1f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl (Spanish link) http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/noticias/2/32 072/P32072.xml &xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p1f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl We look forward to seeing you in San Salvador. With warm regards, Secretariat of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (See attached file: INVITE-ENGLISH-GAID.pdf)(See attached file: INVITA-GAID-ESPANOL.pdf)(See attached file: AGENDA-preliminar-seminario-GAID.pdf)(See attached file: GAID-seminar-draft-agenda.pdf) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: INVITE-ENGLISH-GAID.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64580 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: INVITA-GAID-ESPANOL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64620 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AGENDA-preliminar-seminario-GAID.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56514 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAID-seminar-draft-agenda.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55818 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00650.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 14 15:07:08 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:07:08 +1100 Subject: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium In-Reply-To: <200801101751.m0AHpLfp008755@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <00f001c856e9$14a203f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Yes, the agreement says very little. Having read this and a few comments, my take at this stage is... Suzanne Woolf from ISC is main person responsible at ISC end for this agreement. Suzanne is an ex ICANN staffer, also active in ICANNS RSSAC (root server advisory committee) The primary context is that one of the last remaining tasks under the memorandum with USG for ICANN is to establish agreements with root server operators. This has been difficult in the past and remains so - but completion of this rather benign document does allow ICANN to show some progress in this area in upcoming talks with USG on the MOU. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] Sent: 11 January 2008 04:51 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: [governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > I see what ICANN obtains. I'm very unsure about the gains for ISC. Have a look at http://www.icann.org/froot/ICANN-ISC-MRA-26dec07.pdf and judge for yourself. (The actual MRA wasn't included in the original announcement, but is up now.) > Was it a necessary condition to obtain the announcement of ISC IPv6 > addresses in the root-servers.net zone? > (http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-December/002192.html) This is complete FUD. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 12/01/2008 14:04 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1223 - Release Date: 13/01/2008 20:23 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 15:44:35 2008 From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:44:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TECHNOLOGY IN WARTIME CONFERENCE In-Reply-To: <811239.14803.qm@web25507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <978117.61171.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> cha long time.wot is up? eben kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: Folks, Wondering if any on this list will find this interesting. Please pass it on to any colleagues who may be interested in this: http://technologyinwartime.org/node/4 http://www.cpsr.org/ Good day, Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jan 14 23:24:41 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:24:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Clinton And McCain On Globalization, Technology Message-ID: Clinton And McCain On Globalization, Technology InformationWeek's Outsourcing Weblog Posted by Mary Hayes Weier, Jan 10, 2008 informationweek.com Art. Ref.: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/clinton_and_mcc.html; jsessionid=WI1BUTRWTA2EYQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN Art. Print: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/clinton_and_mcc.html; jsessionid=32GD3ETTSXORYQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN?print=true -- The morning after the Iowa caucus results, I shared with you what Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are saying about technology and globalization. The focus has shifted over to Hillary Clinton and John McCain after the results in New Hampshire's primary. Here's what those presidential candidates have to say about those topics. Clinton, like Obama and Huckabee, has publicly said she supports raising the United States' cap on H-1B visas. Her reasoning mimics the others: that foreign talent has greatly enhanced technology innovation. I couldn't see any reference to that on her Web site, however. She does focus strongly on the overall topic of innovation, though, and how the U.S. is falling behind in this area. Her solutions include increased funding in research and development and getting more kids graduating with technology and science degrees. Specifically: She's calling for increasing the research budgets 50% over 10 years at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Defense Department. That includes ensuring that "e-science" (research that includes Internet-based tools, global collaboration, supercomputers, high-speed networks, and simulation/visualization software) is adequately funded. She's also a booster of nanotechnology, calling it a "potentially unique competitive advantage for the United States." She also supports initiatives to bring more women and minorities into math, science, and engineering professions. From her Web site: "Hillary Clinton proposes that the federal agencies adopt criteria that take diversity into account when awarding education and research grants. She also proposes that the federal government provide financial support to college and university programs that encourage women and minorities to study math, science, and engineering." Clinton also laments the U.S.'s comparably poor deployment of broadband. "Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton proposes that the federal government provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She also proposes financial support for state and local broadband initiatives. Various municipal broadband initiatives are under way around the country to accelerate the deployment of high-speed networks. The initiatives are useful for education, commerce, technology development, and the efficient provision of municipal services." She wants to overhaul the Research & Experimentation tax credit to make the United States a more attractive location for high-paying jobs. She thinks the 20% incremental tax credit should be made permanent to encourage the building of R&D facilities. She also criticizes the Bush administration's "irresponsible politicization of science," and says she'd "reinvigorate" (is that code for clean out?) the Office of Science and Technology to allow for "objective, fact-based advice." Now let's take a look at McCain. A major focus of his technology policy calls for, well, not taxing technology. Here's why he wants to ban Internet taxes: "John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As president, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity." McCain also said he would ban new cell phone taxes, as the "same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message -- and even 911 calls." McCain is calling for a permanent R&D tax credit "to keep America competitive and provide a stable environment for entrepreneurs." McCain also has publicly said he supports increasing H-1B visas, but his Web site sticks to generalities. His solution for what some deem the scary side of globalization (losing tech jobs to other countries and their citizens) falls in line with Obama and Clinton, which is to better prepare the workforce for global competition. But while Obama and Clinton segue that discussion into getting more minorities and women into math and science jobs, McCain goes into a discussion about school of choice: "John McCain believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional, and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field, and build effective enforcement of global trading rules. "John McCain understands that globalization will not automatically benefit every American. We must prepare the next generation of workers by making American education worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves. We must be a nation committed to competitiveness and opportunity. We must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence. We must place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children." After sifting through this stuff, my initial reaction is there are no great surprises here; the candidates' positions on technology and globalization align pretty much with their respective Democrat and Republican ideals. What do you think; does any of this information affect who you'll vote for? --- -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 Tue Jan 15 11:45:25 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:45:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Huckabee And Obama On Globalization, Technology Message-ID: Huckabee And Obama On Globalization, Technology InformationWeek's Outsourcing Weblog Posted by Mary Hayes Weier, Jan 4, 2008 informationweek.com Art. Ref.: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/huckabee_and_ob.html Art. Print: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/huckabee_and_ob.html; jsessionid=TUJNTUYOKBD2GQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN?print=true -- First off, Huck-a-who? I had to do some research this morning to learn more about the winning Republican candidate at the Iowa caucus. So Mike Huckabee is an ultraconservative and former Baptist preacher. Ohh-kay. But I'll resist the urge to spout out my personal views here and share with you what Huckabee and Democratic winner Barack Obama have to say on the issues of globalization and technology at their Web sites. Huckabee's site includes such topics as "The Secure American Plan," "Sanctity of Life," and "Faith of Politics." Under the first category, he said he supports increasing visas "for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants," indicating that he would support an increase in H-1B visas. This is from the Taxes/Economy section of his site: I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families and real lives and real pain. I'm running for President because I don't want people who have worked loyally for a company for twenty or thirty years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, "I'm sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here." I believe that globalization, done right, done fairly, can be a blessing for our society. As the Industrial Revolution raised living standards by allowing ordinary people to buy mass-produced goods that previously only the rich could afford, so globalization gives all of us the equivalent of a big pay raise by letting us buy all kinds of things from clothing to computers to TVs much more inexpensively. Obama's site, meanwhile, is far more sophisticated (in my personal view) on the areas of globalization and technology. Here are his broad plans for technology: *Ensure an open Internet. *Create a transparent and connected democracy. *Encourage a modern communications infrastructure. *Employ technology to solve our nation�s most pressing problems. *Improve America�s competitiveness. Many of his plans in this area go into great yet ambitious detail (perhaps too ambitious). It's way more stuff than I can actually copy here. He also promotes job training for clean technologies and the deployment of next-generation broadband. It's an interesting read. Here's Obama's take on H-1Bs: While highly skilled immigrants have contributed in beneficial ways to our domestic technology industry, there are plenty of Americans who could be filling those positions given the proper training. Barack Obama is committed to investing in communities and people who have not had an opportunity to work and participate in the Internet economy as anything other than consumers. Most H-1B new arrivals, for example, have earned a bachelor�s degree or its equivalent abroad (42.5%). They are not all PhDs. We can and should produce more Americans with bachelor�s degrees that lead to jobs in technology. A report of the National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans as a whole comprise more that 25% of the population but earn, as a whole, 16% of the bachelor degrees, 11% of the master�s degrees, and 5% of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering. We can do better than that and go a long way toward meeting industry�s need for skilled workers with Americans. That being said, we do not want to shut our doors to innovators from overseas, who have traditionally helped make America strong. Barack Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes improvement in our visa programs, including our legal permanent resident visa programs and temporary programs including the H-1B program, to attract some of the world�s most talented people to America. We should allow immigrants who earn their degrees in the U.S. to stay, work, and become Americans over time. And we should examine our ability to increase the number of permanent visas we issue to foreign skilled workers. Obama will work to ensure immigrant workers are less dependent on their employers for their right to stay in the country and would hold accountable employers who abuse the system and their workers. Obama indicates he'd take a tougher stance on China: In its first six years, the Bush Administration has filed only 16 cases to enforce its rights under WTO agreements. This compares to 68 cases filed during the first six years of the Clinton Administration. President Bush has failed to address the fact that China has engaged in ongoing currency manipulation that undercuts US exports; that China fails to enforce U.S. copyrights and trademarks and that some of our competitors create regulatory and tax barriers to the delivery and sale of technology goods and services abroad. Barack Obama will fight for fair treatment of our companies abroad. What do you think of these candidates' views, and how will they impact your vote? --- -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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Jan 17 12:41:32 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:41:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A debate is developing over the future of the ICANN "Joint project agreement" with the US Commerce Department. Comment deadline is Feb. 15th, I have seen astoundingly little discussion of that topic here. On today's IGP blog, I seek to stimulate some discussion of that issue. Please take a look and let me know what you think. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/1/17/3470996.html Milton Mueller, Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ------------------------------ The Convergence Center: http://www.digitalconvergence.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 17 22:02:35 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:02:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080118030235.GA4219@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [17/01/08 12:41 -0500]: >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/1/17/3470996.html ------ Historically, the US Commerce Dept. responds to very specific stakeholders: the IPR lobby in Washington, foremost among them; governments collectively through the GAC; "national security" claimants in the domestic polity; big telcos and Internet businesses. ----- That's strange, but I could have sworn that several of these are already active in ICANN itself. So, given that, what difference does it make if the JPA exists or is removed? 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 Jan 18 04:19:28 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:19:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] EURO-IGF? References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080118030235.GA4219@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DF2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-0041&language=EN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 18 13:02:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:02:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: <20080118030235.GA4219@hserus.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080118030235.GA4219@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC392@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >So, given that, what difference does it make if the >JPA exists or is removed? Not sure how seriously to take this question. The answer is that JPA gives one agency of the US government (The Commerce Dept) the ability to set priorities and policy objectives for 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Jan 18 20:23:27 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:23:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC392@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC37D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080118030235.GA4219@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC392@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080119012327.GA10252@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [18/01/08 13:02 -0500]: > >>So, given that, what difference does it make if the >>JPA exists or is removed? > >Not sure how seriously to take this question. The answer is that JPA >gives one agency of the US government (The Commerce Dept) the ability to >set priorities and policy objectives for ICANN. Not that they have meaningfully exercised it, that you'd notice And if it is industry lobbyist driven, AND icann is also, as you keep alleging, industry lobbyist driven, I can't see where it makes one whit of difference. Can't operate in a power vacuum you know. 1. USG - won't (and can't) let up control 2. The UN - lots of people dont seem to want that, lots of governments do, the USG doesnt. So probably the USG stays - possession = 9/10ths of the law etc etc 3. Civil society, caucuses etc etc - try getting some form of actual consensus first. And then keep trying to get consensus for everything starting from indenting for paperclips and printer paper. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 18 22:07:59 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:07:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA Message-ID: Suresh, The DoC influence via the JPA has usually been subtle, and limited, and yep, has sometimes been beneficial. So yeah it has been exercised, but rarely adevrtised. And it's not black and white. But all in all it is time to move on, I agree with Milton. Will be interesting to see what comes next! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 01/18/08 8:23 PM >>> Milton L Mueller [18/01/08 13:02 -0500]: > >>So, given that, what difference does it make if the >>JPA exists or is removed? > >Not sure how seriously to take this question. The answer is that JPA >gives one agency of the US government (The Commerce Dept) the ability to >set priorities and policy objectives for ICANN. Not that they have meaningfully exercised it, that you'd notice And if it is industry lobbyist driven, AND icann is also, as you keep alleging, industry lobbyist driven, I can't see where it makes one whit of difference. Can't operate in a power vacuum you know. 1. USG - won't (and can't) let up control 2. The UN - lots of people dont seem to want that, lots of governments do, the USG doesnt. So probably the USG stays - possession = 9/10ths of the law etc etc 3. Civil society, caucuses etc etc - try getting some form of actual consensus first. And then keep trying to get consensus for everything starting from indenting for paperclips and printer paper. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jan 19 03:47:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:47:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080119084711.GA26040@hserus.net> I see your point. And no, it is not black and white. But - 1. DoC hasn't been using a mailed fist approach 2. As I said, lots of ICANN stakeholders are also DoC stakeholders. So.. srs Lee McKnight [18/01/08 22:07 -0500]: >Suresh, > >The DoC influence via the JPA has usually been subtle, and limited, and >yep, has sometimes been beneficial. So yeah it has been exercised, but >rarely adevrtised. And it's not black and white. > >But all in all it is time to move on, I agree with Milton. Will be >interesting to see what comes next! > >Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Jan 19 04:03:50 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:03:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: <20080119084711.GA26040@hserus.net> References: <20080119084711.GA26040@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 19 Jan 2008, at 09:47, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > DoC stakeholders DoC Stakeholders? i don't believe there is any such thing. only DoC subjects. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jan 19 04:12:22 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:12:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Assessing the ICANN JPA In-Reply-To: References: <20080119084711.GA26040@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080119091222.GA28599@hserus.net> Avri Doria [19/01/08 10:03 +0100]: > On 19 Jan 2008, at 09:47, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> DoC stakeholders > > DoC Stakeholders? > > i don't believe there is any such thing. > only DoC subjects. Well yes. People who have stake in DoC related issues and pay lobbyists to lobby DoC and related senate subcommittees. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 22 08:16:38 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:16:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future Message-ID: Hi, If you go to the IGF discussion forum you will find a summary of discussions from the advisory group mailing list about the future of the advisory group. Comments sent by advisory group members to date have been summarized and anonymized (Chatham house rule.) Descriptions says: "The attached file contains excerpts from on ongoing discussion on the IGF Advsory Group mailing list thread on its own future. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 6 December 2007 and 15 January, 2007. One contribution to this discussion is also posted as a separate submission." Discussion on the AG list hasn't ended. I imagine the file will eventually be available on the usual IGF website, but for now the secretariat is trying to encourage us to use online forums to share and discuss issues between meetings. Direct link to the file is but would be good if people joined the online discussion and sent in their own comments on the future of the AG, rotation, etc. For info, I have not yet contributed a comment, other civil society advisory group members have. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jan 22 13:21:05 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:21:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says Message-ID: IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says The Washington Post By Aoife White Associated Press Tuesday, January 22, 2008; D01 washingtonpost.com Art. Ref.: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101340 .html?hpid=sec-tech Print: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101340 _pf.html Google News - all 203 news articles: http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ncl=1126688783&hl=en&topic=t -- BRUSSELS -- IP addresses, strings of numbers that identify computers on the Internet, should generally be regarded as personal information, the head of the European Union's group of data privacy regulators said Monday. Germany's data-protection commissioner, Peter Scharr, leads the E.U. group, which is preparing a report on how well the privacy policies of Internet search engines operated by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others comply with E.U. privacy law. Scharr told a European Parliament hearing on online data protection that when someone is identified by an IP, or Internet protocol, address, "then it has to be regarded as personal data." His view differs from that of Google, which insists an IP address merely identifies the location of a computer, not who the individual user is. That is true but does not take into consideration that many people regularly use the same computer and IP address. Scharr acknowledged that IP addresses for a computer may not always be personal or linked to an individual. For example, some computers in Internet cafes or offices are used by several people. These exceptions have not stopped the emergence of a host of "whois" Internet sites, which allow users to type in an IP address and will then generate a name for the person or company linked to it. Treating IP addresses as personal information would have implications for how search engines record data. Google was the first last year to cut the time it stored search information to 18 months. It also reduced the time limit on the cookies that collect information on how people use the Internet from a default of 30 years to an automatic expiration in two years. A privacy advocate at the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center said it was "absurd" for Google to claim that stripping out the last two figures from the stored IP address made the address impossible to identify by making it one of 256 possible configurations. "It's one of the things that make computer people giggle," the center's executive director, Marc Rotenberg, said. "The more the companies know about you, the more commercial value is obtained." Google's global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, said Google collects IP addresses to give customers a more accurate service because it knows what part of the world a search result comes from and what language is used -- and that was not enough to identify an individual user. "If someone taps in 'football,' you get different results in London than in New York," he said. The way Google stores IP addresses meant that one address forms part of a crowd, giving valuable information on general trends without infringing on an individual's privacy, he said. Google says it needs to store search queries and gather information on online activity to improve its search results and to provide advertisers with correct billing information that shows that genuine users are clicking on online ads. Internet "click fraud" can be tracked by showing that the same IP address is jumping repeatedly to the same ad. Advertisers pay for each time a different person views the ad, so dozens of views by the same person can rack up costs without giving the company the publicity it wanted. Microsoft does not record the IP address that identifies an individual computer when it logs search terms. Its Internet strategy relies on users logging into the Passport network that is linked to its popular Hotmail and Messenger services. The company's European Internet policy director, Thomas Myrup Kristensen, described the move as part of Microsoft's commitment to privacy. "In terms of the impact on user privacy, complete and irreversible anonymity is the most important point here -- more impactful than whether the data is retained for 13 versus 18 versus 24 months," he said. Neither of the search engines received a pat on the back from Spain's data protection regulator, Artemi Rallo Lombarte, who criticized them for not trying to make their privacy policies accessible to normal people. Their privacy policies "could very well be considered virtual or fictional . . . because search engines do not sufficiently emphasize their own privacy policies on their home pages, nor are they accessible to users," he said, describing the policies as "complex and unintelligible to users." --- -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 karl at cavebear.com Tue Jan 22 13:39:26 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:39:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says > > The Washington Post > BRUSSELS -- IP addresses, strings of numbers that identify computers on the > Internet, should generally be regarded as personal information If that is the case then one must question whether an ISP or core provider's use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP Reset packet (for the purpose of, for example, "slowing" bittorrent traffic) is a usurpation of that personally identifiable information. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jan 22 14:11:11 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The Federal Communications Commission 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Message-ID: The FCC will hold a mock auction on January 22 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, during which qualified bidders can submit non-binding bids in order to test the system. The mock auction will include 176 A Block licenses and 12 C Block licenses, or 188 or the 1,099 licenses that will be up for grabs on January 24. The Auction (The Live Binding Auction) will take place on January 24 and participants must place their bids through the Internet or telephone, the FCC said. It will kick off in two-hour increments beginning 10 a.m. EST. The Federal Communications Commission released the names of 266 "short-form" applicants for the 700 MHz spectrum auction scheduled to start Jan. 24. 2008. FCC accepted applications: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5030A2.pdf and here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5030A3.pdf Three (3) Articles follow below: F.Y.I. Referance -- A Primer On The Coming FCC Auction by Adama D. Brown - 8/30/2007 Art. Ref.: http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=13301 Print: http://www.brighthand.com/printArticle.asp?newsid=13301 - Thanks to a number of recent news articles, most people should be aware of the upcoming auction of radio "spectrum" being held by the FCC in January. What everyone might not know is why this is going to be very important for anyone who uses a mobile device in the United States, and what the exact mechanics are. What's actually being auctioned? The answer is, licenses on the right to use certain radio frequencies. Specifically, a big block between 698 and 806 MHz, typically called the 700 MHz range for obvious reasons. This is a range that was formerly used for analog TV channels numbered 52 through 69. When over-the-air TV switches over to digital broadcasts in early 2009, these sections will no longer be needed, so the FCC is offering them for other use. Most of the interest centers on the potential for high-speed wireless Internet service, and to a lesser extent mobile phone service. Why are these licenses so desirable? Simply put, it has to do with radio mechanics. As radio frequencies go down, they get more range and ability to penetrate obstructions like buildings and tree foliage for the same amount of energy put into the signal. The 700 MHz band is considered to be a nearly ideal combination of available bandwidth -- about 10 megabits total for a single 5 MHz "block" -- and range, which can be up to a hundred miles. A two-way connection would limit the range, but it's still not inconceivable that there could be mobile connections at up to 30 miles, and fixed installs even farther out. This is compared to current cellular systems which tend to max out at between 5 and 15 miles, depending on conditions. The most desirable set of licenses is the C group. This represents two blocks, each 11 MHz wide, which can be bought separately. Each of these blocks has a nationwide license -- a company which buys one can deploy wireless coverage using it anywhere in the United States. To give an idea how valuable this is, Google has said it may be committing an opening bid of $4.6 billion dollars in order to try and capture these licenses. This is also the swath that Verizon wants to own. The same nationwide licensing applies to the D group, which is two blocks of 5 MHz each. However, whatever companies buy the two D blocks will be required to help build and maintain a national public safety network as well. Due to this, and the smaller amount of space, the D blocks are less desired than the C group, and thus are considered to be the best chance of seeing a relatively unknown company get a national license. Last but not least are the A, B, and E groups. Each of these is comprised of two blocks of 5 MHz, for a grand total of 30 MHz. However, they're broken up into about a thousand regional licenses, meaning that they'll be more affordable for small carriers, local players, or others who aren't cash-rich to potentially grab. In theory, a company could also buy enough of these regional licenses to build a national or semi-national network as well. In theory, there's enough radio spectrum up for grabs to build ten new nationwide networks, or four national networks and a dozen regionals. More likely, though, a significant amount of the available spectrum will be bought out by existing players to supplement their current offerings. The last question is, who's bidding? Well, nobody knows for sure until it happens, but Verizon is a safe bet, and Google may be as well. It's likely that Sprint and some of the other mobile phone carriers will also at least test out the waters. Equally interested are some startup companies with big funding; satellite TV companies which may want the bandwidth for "triple play" services; and even possibly some real surprises like wired telecommunication companies looking to expand. One thing to be sure of is that whoever comes out a winner in the auction, don't expect them to just sit on their winnings. The terms of the sale require that companies build out networks using their purchases, with a minimum 35-40% coverage of the company's licensed area after four years, and 70-75% after ten years -- Google Playing to Win in the 700 MHz Auctions By Brough Turner, Jan 21, 2008 circleid.com Art. Ref.: http://www.circleid.com/posts/812112_google_win_700_mhz_auction/ - Many say Google will bid to lose in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions and many more are equivocating. The idea is Google�s entry alone will induce enough openness, and besides they couldn�t afford to become an operator. This shows a total lack of understanding! Google is run by idealists who want to change the world and have the money to undertake grand projects. They are already seeking to index, and make available, all the world�s information. As part of this vision they are scanning all existing books and fighting the legal battles this implies. When their own video repository failed to gain traction, they bought YouTube for $1.65B, and took on their legal hassles. Most recently their Palimpsest project is going to host enormous scientific databases for free. In short Google is not afraid to spend money or take large risks, including legal risks, to accomplish something they believe in. Critical for Google�s vision, and for their business, is open Internet access. Fixed access is relatively open today, but mobile is a big problem. So Google won�t seek a little opening on the part of some US operators. Google needs open mobile access, i.e. dumb pipes, which means the total destruction of existing mobile operator business models. They�ve already started from the edge with the Open Handset Alliance and the Android open-source mobile handset stack. Google�s made a major investment here, not to compete for revenue on handset software or to control applications on edge devices, but to tip the balance from operators to the edge. First and foremost, Android is an open platform to encourage innovation. It�s also free. Google doesn�t need or expect a direct return on this investment. The 700 MHz auctions are just the next step. Again, look for something unconventional. Google doesn�t need or want to become a mobile operator. They want to create an industry where mobile dumb pipes are widely available. Assuming Google wins, what might they do? This is speculation on my part, but a good plan might be two fold. First pick the latest mass market technology for mobile broadband access, probably mobile WiMAX, and set up a program to foster numerous independent wireless ISPs (WISPs) rolling out services on Google�s frequencies. In the 1990s, the US had thousands of ISPs providing dial up access over traditional phone lines. The goal here would be to duplicate that entrepreneurial flurry for both fixed and mobile wireless access. You may argue fixed is OK as services are local, but for mobile you really need regional and national coverage. Yes, but Google themselves could offer WISPs the opportunity to participate in a federation for national roaming, perhaps using Google Checkout for payments. Second, formalize a set of rules for smart-radios based on the work they�ve been doing for open access to TV White Space. Throw open their spectrum to anyone who�s willing to use appropriate smart radio technology, thus fostering long term innovation. Open access in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands has certainly fostered innovation. Google could achieve something similar. These two steps, a mass market technology like WiMAX for rapid deployment, and open access for innovation, yield the maximum long term benefit for this spectrum and increase the likelihood that other countries will follow the US lead (as the world has done for 2.4 GHz and WiFi). Reference: See FCC�s revised 700 MHz band plan for commercial services [PDF] http://www.fcc.gov/073107/700mhz_band_plan_chart_073107.pdf --- Future of First Responder Spectrum In Doubt by Chloe Albanesius, 01.14.08 pcmag.com Art. Ref.: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2249050,00.asp Print: http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=223463,00.asp - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Monday formally accepted the applications of major telecom and Internet players for the upcoming 700 MHz auction, but an announcement from Frontline Wireless Saturday that it will shuts its doors puts the future of first responder spectrum in jeopardy. The FCC issued final approval for 214 bidders in the January 24 spectrum auction, but shut out 52 applicants. Among those on the non-qualified bidders list was Frontline Wireless, an entity that was looking to build a national network for emergency responders. The group said in a statement on its Web site Saturday, however, that it was "closed for business at this time" and had "no further comment," calling into question whether or not the auction will result in more airwaves for the nation's police and firefighters. At issue is a swath of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band that will become available once television broadcasters shift from analog to digital signals in early 2009. The FCC on January 24 will auction off access to that spectrum, which is considered highly valuable because of its far-reaching strengths. In early December the FCC received 266 auction applications. Ninety-six of those applications were accepted; 170 were deemed incomplete, and were required to be re-submitted by January 4. One of the only companies to receive approval in December was Google, bidding under the name Google Airwaves. Earlier this year, Google pushed the FCC to adopt open applications, devices, services and networks. The commission later adopted "open access" rules for the 22-MHz upper "C Block," but denied Google's request for a wholesale market approach. Google is still listed as an accepted applicant, as are previously rejected bidders like Alltel, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Cox Wireless, Cablevision (bidding as CSC Spectrum Holdings), Echostar (bidding as Frontier Wireless), and Qualcomm. Frontline, however, which filed its bid under the name Licenseco LLC, appeared on the commission's non-qualified bidders list. Late last year, the group successfully lobbied the FCC to extend its upfront payment deadline by one week due to the holiday season. The auction will take place on January 24 and participants must place their bids through the Internet or telephone, the FCC said. It will kick off in two-hour increments beginning 10 a.m. EST. The FCC will hold a mock auction on January 22 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, during which qualified bidders can submit non-binding bids in order to test the system. The mock auction will include 176 A Block licenses and 12 C Block licenses, or 188 or the 1,099 licenses that will be up for grabs on January 24. ---- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jan 22 16:00:53 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:00:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: 4796385E.90109@cavebear.com Message-ID: For that matter any malicious use of the 'control bits' ['RST' or 'SYN': TCP reset attacks & SYN attacks] of a "Personal-Address" that induces route flapping which leeds to route dampening/suppression, etc... could be subject of too Cyber-Tort. It will be interesting to see if the Law gets on the E.U.'s books. WE should talk, the U.S. has a lot of Laws that on-the-books which were meant to 'bam-boozle' the Public, in order to do the right thing. Mr. Scharr's (Peter Scharr, leads the E.U. group / Germany's data-protection commissioner) heart is in the right place, he just need some help with the 'science'. You have to start somewhere, more-power-to him, at least he's thinking about it. I just wish our Politicians would get off their dead-asses and think. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 23 05:47:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:17:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080106130757.87E31E17C2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080123104746.33E8F67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> I still hope we will be able to develop an IGC input into the MAG reconstitution issue. I will list the key issues for this purpose, following some exchanges on this list and the summary of MAG discussions on the issue forwarded by Adam. (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. (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. (4) What percentage of MAG members should rotate annually? (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. Then there are more structural issues like, (1) what is the nature and authority/ decision making power of the MAG (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. (3) The very important issue of what should be done to ensure transparency and accountability of the MAG. There are some other minor issue like the role and selection of the Chair and the relevance and role of a co-chair. If members could put forward their views on these issues we can explore the possibility of a consensus statement. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG - or in the official language 'suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the various interested groups'. A discussion thread has been opened on this issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ . Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the comments page. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 23 05:54:52 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:24:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080123105456.0FD71E1182@smtp3.electricembers.net> I must congratulate the MAG for taking this decision to publish its discussions. I hope this practice continues for all deliberations, including face-to-face meetings. Adam, you say these are excerpts (which I read to mean it is not the full text of discussions) but the document says " The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule". This is really a good practice to carry on. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future Hi, If you go to the IGF discussion forum you will find a summary of discussions from the advisory group mailing list about the future of the advisory group. Comments sent by advisory group members to date have been summarized and anonymized (Chatham house rule.) Descriptions says: "The attached file contains excerpts from on ongoing discussion on the IGF Advsory Group mailing list thread on its own future. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 6 December 2007 and 15 January, 2007. One contribution to this discussion is also posted as a separate submission." Discussion on the AG list hasn't ended. I imagine the file will eventually be available on the usual IGF website, but for now the secretariat is trying to encourage us to use online forums to share and discuss issues between meetings. Direct link to the file is but would be good if people joined the online discussion and sent in their own comments on the future of the AG, rotation, etc. For info, I have not yet contributed a comment, other civil society advisory group members have. 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 Wed Jan 23 08:30:17 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:30:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future In-Reply-To: <20080123105456.0FD71E1182@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080123105456.0FD71E1182@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080123133016.GA15383@malcolm.id.au> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:24:52PM +0530, Parminder wrote: > > I must congratulate the MAG for taking this decision to publish its > discussions. I hope this practice continues for all deliberations, including > face-to-face meetings. > > Adam, you say these are excerpts (which I read to mean it is not the full > text of discussions) but the document says " The only changes made relate to > an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule". > This is really a good practice to carry on. Agreed; I wonder if any of our comments and criticisms prompted this? I suspect they can't have hurt. All the more reason then for us to contribute positively to the discussions on Advisory Group rotation and Taking Stock of Rio ahead of February's open consultation. -- 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 Wed Jan 23 09:18:07 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:18:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future In-Reply-To: <20080123133016.GA15383@malcolm.id.au> References: <20080123105456.0FD71E1182@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080123133016.GA15383@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Parminder: "excerpts" means in this case the posts were extracted from the larger discussion on the list, not that portions were taken from individual posts (unless to anonymize etc.) Not a summary either as I mistakenly characterized. Nothing has been sanitized. Sorry for any confusion. Jeremy: A member of the advisory group suggested the discussion be made public. See writer B on page 6. Adam At 10:30 PM +0900 1/23/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:24:52PM +0530, Parminder wrote: >> >> I must congratulate the MAG for taking this decision to publish its >> discussions. I hope this practice continues for all deliberations, including >> face-to-face meetings. >> > > Adam, you say these are excerpts (which I read to mean it is not the full >> text of discussions) but the document says " The only changes made relate to >> an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule". >> This is really a good practice to carry on. > >Agreed; I wonder if any of our comments and criticisms prompted this? I >suspect they can't have hurt. All the more reason then for us to >contribute positively to the discussions on Advisory Group rotation and >Taking Stock of Rio ahead of February's open consultation. > >-- >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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jan 23 16:04:03 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:04:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] At-Large: Input Period Extended into Issues Report for the IDN ccPDP Message-ID: At-Large: Input Period Extended into Issues Report for the IDN ccPDP Internationalized Domain Name - Country Code Policy Development Process [IDN ccPDP] - From: Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Ref.: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q1/00 2730.html - Dear At-Large: I've been asked to convey the following to you which I suspect will be of interest to many of you: At its meeting on 2 October 2007 the ccNSO Council requested the creation of an Issue Report as a first step in launching a ccPDP. To identify matters that are potentially relevant to the Issues Report, a comment period was opened on 19 December 2007 and would remain open until 25 January 2008. *(Now extended to February 22nd. 2008 / read below). In the Issue Report the following needs to be considered: 1. Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then to establish if Article IX should apply. 2. Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. As you may have noted both the GNSO Council and ccNSO Council have send a letter to the ICANN Board relating to core elements of the IDN ccPDP. It is anticipated the ccNSO and GNSO Council will meet during the ICANN meeting in New Delhi to explain and discuss the background of the views expressed in the letters. It is my view as Issue Manager of the ccPDP that the outcome of such a meeting, if it will be convened, is significant as input for the Issues Report. Therefore the period to provide input into the Issues Report is extended from 25 January until 22 February 2008. According to the ICANN by laws the creation of the Issue Report is the second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The first step was the request of the ccNSO Council on 2 October 2007 to create an Issue Report. The final step is the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the ccPDP (see ICANN by laws Annex B, section 2). Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN -- Reference Article: Resolutions Relating to the Country Code Policy Development Process http://ccnso.icann.org/about/minutes/resolutions-ccnso-policy-dev-process-15nov 07.pdf ---- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 23 22:59:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections Message-ID: <20080124040004.C844E67889@smtp1.electricembers.net> I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31st. Thanks. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 23 22:59:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC review Message-ID: <20080124040008.0FB6BE18F5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi everyone >Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us – at least those of us who care enough about this group – to take up a comprehensive review of the IGC That something that prompted me to call for a comprehensive IGC review also whispered in my ears not to be surprised if no one responded :-). Well, the dose of medicine may have been too much for the present precarious state of the patient, but I do not think we have an alternative. We need to do this sooner or later. And therefore this thread will be kept open, and I may from time to time urge members to get on with this exercise. I have noticed that on this elist there are certain undefined factors – of timing and/ or content – that suddenly provoke some very energetic response and broad involvement. So we will wait for those moments in the context this important task . :-) I have two offlist responses on what may be done to make the group more active in terms of its advocacy mandate, elements of which I will share with the list in the coming time. Meanwhile, I have a proposal. This is in context of the fact that 1. As stated, we urgently need to build/ strengthen the active advocacy component of this group, which is also required as per its charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html) 2. At Rio IGF I met some civil society members interested in IG issues, and willing to be actively involved in global CS advocacy on progressive directions in IG, who were not members of the IGC. Most did not know of its existence. The IGC charter also mandates the group to make active efforts of outreach to the wider civil society constituency. I solicit both advice and action by the members of this group in this direction. What I propose at this point is to write the following email to all those on the IGF, Rio, participants list that are from civil society, and appear likely to be interested. “Dear This email is from the Co-Coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). IGC is a group of civil society actors who are interested in IG issues, and wish ‘to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making’ (to quote the charter of the group which may be seen at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html). Your participation at the IGF Rio indicates that you may be interested in associating with such a group. We are especially trying to reach out to such individuals who have not merely an academic interest in IG but are interested in pursuing a relatively active advocacy agenda in this area. Issues like openness of the Internet, freedom of expression, privacy, Internet and development and IPR versus public domain on the Internet are some important Internet policy areas which require civil society engagement at a global level. A civil society group like the IGC which conducts most of its activities online, supported with some crucial interventions in face-to-face meetings on IG issues, provides a useful forum for individuals who may be differently situated in terms of availability of time and other resources, but are nonetheless interested in impacting Internet policy making. IGC mailing list is also one of the most active forums of informed discussions on IG issues with very diverse viewpoints. Participation in these discussions may help you understand and shape civil society perspectives on IG. If you are interested in joining the group, at the first level you may subscribe to the IGC mailing list using the web interface at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/subscribe/governance . In addition, if you are willing to subscribe to the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ) please reply to this email with such indication, and we will add your name to the list of individuals who have subscribed to the IGC charter. Thanks .. “ I am not sure if many will respond but we will be fulfilling one of the tasks mandated to us by the charter, and can also hope to get some new energy into IGC. If any member has any comments to offer on the above please do it over the next week. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC review IGC members, Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us – at least those of us who care enough about this group – to take up a comprehensive review of the IGC in a back-to-basics/ bare-all spirit. We need to examine what we are here for, how well we are doing it, and which direction should we go from here. We did very briefly try some such review during the face-to-face IGC meeting at Rio, but the time was too short for anything worthwhile, and the participants’ minds and energies were mostly occupied with what was happening in the IGF. However some concrete suggestions did come up, and I as a co-coordinator promised to initiate a discussion on the IGC email list on rethinking/ restructuring IGC. We all can see that there is a certain limbo that this group is at present caught in. Apart from some continued high quality discussions there appears to be not much will and/or energy vis-à-vis an activist advocacy role in this group, which is one of its primary mandate as per the charter adopted in 2005 ( pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). For instance, we are not making much progress towards developing a caucus position for the very important Feb. consultations for the IGF. I had given out a call seeking volunteers for the position of co-coordinator, and I have only received one name till now. Many members who had earlier been very involved in active advocacy kind of roles seem to have reduced their involvement and many other members who are very involved in discussions on this list seem to either not commit themselves to participating in activist roles of developing common positions etc, or they are unable yet to figure out the best way to do this. And I think it is a good time to find out the reasons for this situation in a constructive spirit of moving forward with a greater clarity of what is the best role for this group, and how can that be done most effectively. Such an exercise will help people shape their involvement (or, well, probably withdrawal of involvement) in this group. This in my opinion should be a time for all of us to come out clearly with how we see this group, and where do we want to take it from here. While this process may necessarily mean that many contentions would come out in the open, and we will try to figure out what best can we do about them, we hope that sufficient amount of civility is maintained in this process. This doesn’t mean we need to necessarily moderate our views – I think, for a start, we need some very open and honest discussion here – but only that we do not get personal and abusive. While I will come out with my personal views on this subject separately, in order to set the ball rolling I will mention some of my ‘more neutral’ viewpoints. I think that the politics of technologies (or ICTs) are impacting our societies in a major way, and unfortunately there is great lack of awareness (and, consequently, involvement) of the public at large about how the manner of development of these technologies may underlie the very shaping of our societies. IGC is one of few public interest groups at the global level that is active in this very important area. Lack of public interest advocacy and involvement, which is what our inactivity/ abdication will contribute to, will make for dominant interests shaping the world in manner that serves their interests even more. All of us who fear this possibility, while also seeing the opportunity in the new technologies for a freer as well as a more equal and just world, and have some knowledge, expertise and ‘positions/ connections/ linkages’ in this area, should sincerely explore how best can we further the public interest through this group. On the process side, IGC also represents a unique experiment in global civil society organization, and it is up to us to prove that such new networked forms of civil society organization and advocacy can be successful. Recent emails by Garth and Dan, among others, do discuss some of the issues mentioned above. Hopefully we can have some involved discussions in the next few weeks on these issues which may help us focus and structure IGC more purposefully. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 23 22:59:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080124040042.18F5C6787A@smtp1.electricembers.net> >Parminder: > "excerpts" means in this case the posts were extracted from the >larger discussion on the list, not that portions were taken from >individual posts (unless to anonymize etc.) Not a summary either as >I mistakenly characterized. Nothing has been sanitized. Sorry for >any confusion Thanks for the explanation, Adam. >Jeremy: >A member of the advisory group suggested the discussion be made >public. See writer B on page 6. >Adam A good thing is a good thing whatever its causal factors. Though it is difficult to believe that this move, and the previous one in September last year to publish a summary of closed door proceedings of MAG, has nothing to do with UN SG's direction to improve the flow of information to stakeholders.... Adam, your simplistic explanation above raises 2 points On the negative side - does it mean future email and face-to-face discussions will not have open full transcripts (if anonymized). On the positive side - if one of the MAG members asks for it (which we urge CS members of MAG to do regularly) will they be made open? Jeremy's observation is with respect to the fact that we have regularly asked for providing records of MAGs closed door deliberations, and in September consultations these points were added to outcome doc on the basis of CS inputs, though we are under no illusions about the power of these interventions vis a vis UN SG's diktat. This is also not to minimize MAG's own initiative to open up its deliberations which speaks of their increased confidence in being able to relate to and be accountable to different stakeholders. We do hope that such reforms keep taking place, and as Jeremy says CS and IGC has an important role here..... I mean here to stress the significance of Jeremy's observation and imploring.... Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:48 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about its future Parminder: "excerpts" means in this case the posts were extracted from the larger discussion on the list, not that portions were taken from individual posts (unless to anonymize etc.) Not a summary either as I mistakenly characterized. Nothing has been sanitized. Sorry for any confusion. Jeremy: A member of the advisory group suggested the discussion be made public. See writer B on page 6. Adam At 10:30 PM +0900 1/23/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:24:52PM +0530, Parminder wrote: >> >> I must congratulate the MAG for taking this decision to publish its >> discussions. I hope this practice continues for all deliberations, including >> face-to-face meetings. >> > > Adam, you say these are excerpts (which I read to mean it is not the full >> text of discussions) but the document says " The only changes made relate to >> an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule". >> This is really a good practice to carry on. > >Agreed; I wonder if any of our comments and criticisms prompted this? I >suspect they can't have hurt. All the more reason then for us to >contribute positively to the discussions on Advisory Group rotation and >Taking Stock of Rio ahead of February's open consultation. > >-- >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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 24 02:21:15 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:21:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UNCTAD XII - ministerial conference - 20-25 April 2008, Accra In-Reply-To: <200801231422.m0NEMigm009418@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200801231422.m0NEMigm009418@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: Dear Philippe, Thank you this important information. So for my selff english version of document is not problem , I can read and understand contents. But I can't share english version to all local actors because the official language used in DRC is french and 85%congolese actors read in french fo best understanding. Please , can you send both version english and french! We have 6 National Networks with 1347 differents organisations members.In my level, ACSIS sub Regional Coordinator for Central Africa, we have 10 countries with around 25000 actors online. Majority is frenchspoken. We need their contribution also. Kindly Baudouin 2008/1/23, CONGO - Philippe Dam : > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > > Dear all, > > > > This is a quick up date on the preparatory process leading towards the 12 > th Ministerial Conference of UNCTAD to be held in Accra, Ghana, 20-25 > April 2008. Find attached the draft text circulated at the beginning of the > negotiation dated November 13, as well as the consolidated text under > negotiation dated 22-1-2008. A number of paragraphs refer to ICT issues, in > particular in the follow up to the WSIS (see paragraphs 116-117, 134-137). > > > > Note that a *UNCTAD Hearing with civil society* will take place on *28 > January* *2008*, with the possibility for NGO accredited to the UNCTAD > process to make oral contributions on issues addressed or not yet addressed > by the negotiation process. CONGO will be there and we would be happy to *forward > short comments* on the UNCTAD XII text in relation to post WSIS issues > (please send us comments at wsis at ngocongo.org preferably before this > Friday so that we can compile something out of it). See below draft text > relating to ICT. > > > > In addition, for your information, we've been informed that the UNCTAD > Secretariat will organise a *high level roundtable* within the official > programme of the UNCTAD XII meeting whose theme might be closely related to > ICT issues. More information coming soon. > > > > All organizations that do not have observer status but wish to be part of > the preparations and the Conference itself are encouraged to apply for > accreditation. *Deadline for sending the accreditation questionnaire is 31 > January 2008. *Information about the accreditation procedures and on line > questionnaire: *click here > **.* Please visit herethe CONGO website page on UNCTAD XII and its preparatory process. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Philippe > > > > ------------------------ > > > > ICT related Extracts of the UNCTAD XII negotiation document (see full text > attached): > > > > *Enhancing the enabling environment at all levels to strengthen productive > capacity, trade and* > > *investment: mobilizing resources and harnessing knowledge for development > * > > > > (…) > > > > B. Policy responses > > > > (…) > > > > *116.* Measures must be taken to narrow the digital divide and to ensure > > countries' full and effective participation in the knowledge-based > economy. > > These should be supported by a fuller participation of developing > countries in > > ICT-related international discussions, in particular those within the > framework > > of the follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society and the > > discussions in the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. > > > > *117.* At the national level, ICT policies and strategies need to create > an enabling > > environment for the domestic information economy and a competitive ICT > > industry. The main elements include developing the ICT infrastructure and > the > > telecommunications sector, upgrading digital skills, implementing a legal > and > > regulatory framework to support ICT-related business development, trade > and > > investment, e-government and technological innovation. These actions need > to > > be integrated in national development plans or poverty reduction strategy > > papers, and ICT policies need to be regularly reviewed. > > > > (…) > > > > C. UNCTAD's contribution > > > > (…) > > > > *134.* UNCTAD should further strengthen its research and analysis in the > area of > > science, technology and innovation and ICTs, and should promote the > design, > > implementation and monitoring of international and national policies in > this > > area. UNCTAD should help strengthen North-South and South-South > > cooperation in harnessing knowledge and technology for development and > assist > > developing countries and countries with economies in transition through > > science, technology and innovation policy reviews and related technical > > assistance. > > > > *135.* UNCTAD should also support international debate, including within > the > > Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on science and > > technology, including ICTs, and their implications for development, and > should > > assist developing countries in accessing technological innovations. UNCTAD > > should continue to help developing countries to participate effectively in > > international discussions on technology transfer and knowledge-sharing and > to > > identify policy options and best practice in this area. > > > > *136.* UNCTAD should continue to provide technical assistance to countries > on > > ICT policy reviews, pro-poor ICT policies, legal and regulatory > frameworks, and > > the development of the information economy, including through the > Partnership > > on Measuring ICT for Development launched at UNCTAD XI. It should > > continue to expand its work on the measurement of the information economy > > and its related capacity-building activities in developing countries. > > > > *137.* In its capacity as secretariat to the Commission on Science and > Technology > > for Development, UNCTAD should pursue its role in the follow-up to and > > implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information > > Society. > > > > (…) > > > > > > *Philippe Dam** > CONGO - Information Society & > Human Rights Coordinator > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: **philippe.dam at ngocongo.org* * > Website: www.ngocongo.org * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Jan 24 03:36:27 2008 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:36:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> (Karl Auerbach's message of "Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:39:26 -0800") References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Dear all, >>>>> "Karl" == Karl Auerbach writes: > yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >> IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says The >> Washington Post >> BRUSSELS -- IP addresses, strings of numbers that identify >> computers on the Internet, should generally be regarded as >> personal information > If that is the case then one must question whether an ISP or > core provider's use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP > Reset packet (for the purpose of, for example, "slowing" > bittorrent traffic) is a usurpation of that personally > identifiable information. I am surprised that this point raised so many eyebrows (not particularly on this list, but on other ones that I follow). First of all, the opinion of Scharr - which is actually the opinion of the Working Party 29 (WP29) which is composed of the data protection officers of all EU member states - is advisory only and does not have the force of binding law. Second, the fact that the WP29 considered an IP address to be "personal data" in the sense of the relevant European data protection Directives has been known since some time - the WP29 has already issued some opinions on this particular point (I can provide the references if somebody is interested). Again, these are *opinions*, not binding laws, although they do have a certain weight. Regarding Karl Auerbach's scenario, which I believe refers to the Comcast "incident" in the US, legally speaking it would probably fall under the "processing of personal data" pusuant to Directive 95/46/EC, art. 2(b) "processing of personal data'('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction", art. 6 and art. 7 "Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: (a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or (b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; or (d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or (e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or (f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under Article 1 (1)". But of course the Comcast incident took place in the US, not in the EU (for now :). Incidentally, once might also argue that deep-packet inspection ("network neutrality" anyone?) breaches data protection laws across Europe, unless there is a clear consent from the end-user. Care to guess how many ISPs in the EU actually do request that "clear consent"? Ciao, -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Every honest researcher I know admits he's just a professional amateur. He's doing whatever he's doing for the first time. That makes him an amateur. He has sense enough to know that he's going to have a lot of trouble, so that makes him a professional." Charles Franklin Kettering (1876-1958) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 05:16:40 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:16:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 1/24/08, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear all, > > >>>>> "Karl" == Karl Auerbach writes: > > > yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > >> IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says The > >> Washington Post > > >> BRUSSELS -- IP addresses, strings of numbers that identify > >> computers on the Internet, should generally be regarded as > >> personal information > > > If that is the case then one must question whether an ISP or > > core provider's use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP > > Reset packet (for the purpose of, for example, "slowing" > > bittorrent traffic) is a usurpation of that personally > > identifiable information. > > I am surprised that this point raised so many eyebrows (not > particularly on this list, but on other ones that I follow). > > First of all, the opinion of Scharr - which is actually the opinion of > the Working Party 29 (WP29) which is composed of the data protection > officers of all EU member states - is advisory only and does not have > the force of binding law. IANAL, so is this "binding"? http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/HTML/185.htm Article 18 -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Jan 24 05:45:20 2008 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:45:20 +0100 Subject: Is the CoE Convention on Cybercrime binding? (Was: Re: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says) In-Reply-To: (McTim's message of "Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:16:40 +0300") References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Dear McTim, dear all, >>>>> "McTim" == McTim writes: > IANAL, so is this "binding"? > http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/HTML/185.htm > Article 18 This particular Convention of the Council of Europe [1] enters into force after 5 ratifications, of which at least 3 must be of Member States of the Council of Europe. This already happened on 1/7/2004, therefore the CoE Convention 185, a.k.a. the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, is binding on Member States which ratified it. The actual process of ratification varies From state to state. Italy, for example, needs only a parliamentary vote; other states might need an affirmative referendum; others might need something else. The current status of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime can be seen at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=1/24/2008&CL=ENG Hope this answers your question! Andrea [1] For those who are not inside "eurojargon": the Council of Europe does not have anything to do with the European Union or the European Communities (sometimes referred to as the European Community, but actually it's more than one) even though the European Union has a Council of the European Union and a European Council. Many members of the Council of Europe are also member states of the European Union, and there is in general a certain respect and deference towards each other's legal acts and policies, but nothing more than that. If you think that's confusing, you are not alone.. There must be a reason why Manuel Castells took Europe as one shining example of the new "network model" of policy making - no clear center of power. Of course, the fact that Castells is spanish might have had a role. :) -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Every honest researcher I know admits he's just a professional amateur. He's doing whatever he's doing for the first time. That makes him an amateur. He has sense enough to know that he's going to have a lot of trouble, so that makes him a professional." Charles Franklin Kettering (1876-1958) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Jan 24 09:13:06 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:13:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UNCTAD XII - ministerial conference - 20-25 April 2008, Accra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200801241412.m0OEC2ed016016@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Thanks Baudouin, Indeed the initial draft is also available in French. All documents are available on the UNCTAD XII website: http://www.unctadxii.org/en/Documents/. Looking forward to reading you. Ph Cher Baudouin, Le texte de novembre est également disponible en Français, mais la version contenant les propositions d’amendement n’est, quant à lui, disponible qu’en Anglais, vu qu’il s’agit de la langue de travail principale. Les paragraphes que j’avais cités dans mon message comme se référant aux TIC et au suivi et mise en œuvre du SMSI sont les suivants : Améliorer un environnement propice à tous les niveaux pour renforcer les capacités productives, le commerce et l’investissement: mobiliser les ressources et mettre à profit les connaissances pour le développement B. Action 116. Des mesures doivent être prises pour remédier à la fracture numérique et assurer la participation pleine et effective des pays à l’économie du savoir. Ces mesures devraient être complétées par un renforcement de la participation des pays en développement aux débats de la communauté internationale sur les TIC, en particulier dans le cadre du suivi du Sommet mondial sur la société de l’information et des travaux de la Commission de la science et de la technique au service du développement. 117. Au niveau national, les politiques et les stratégies en matière de TIC devraient créer un environnement propice permettant aux pays d’accéder à l’économie de l’information et d’avoir une industrie des TIC compétitive. Cela implique notamment le développement de l’infrastructure des TIC et du secteur des télécommunications, la mise à niveau des compétences numériques et la mise en place d’un cadre juridique et réglementaire pour appuyer le développement des entreprises, le commerce et les investissements liés aux TIC, l’administration publique en ligne et l’innovation technologique. Ces initiatives doivent s’inscrire dans les plans de développement ou les stratégies de réduction de la pauvreté des pays, et les politiques en matière de TIC doivent être réexaminées périodiquement. C. Contribution de la CNUCED 134. La CNUCED devrait intensifier ses travaux de recherche et d’analyse concernant la science, la technologie, l’innovation et les TIC, et promouvoir l’élaboration, la mise en œuvre et le suivi de politiques nationales et internationales dans ce domaine. Elle devrait aussi aider à renforcer la coopération Nord-Sud et Sud-Sud pour mettre à profit les connaissances et les technologies pour le développement et aider les pays en développement et les pays en transition en procédant à des examens de la politique de la science, de la technologie et de l’innovation et en apportant une assistance technique à cet égard. 135. La CNUCED devrait aussi contribuer au débat international, notamment à la Commission de la science et de la technique au service du développement, sur la science et la technologie, y compris les TIC, et leurs incidences sur le développement, et aider les pays en développement à accéder aux innovations technologiques. Elle devrait continuer d’aider les pays en développement à participer de manière efficace aux discussions, au niveau international, sur le transfert de technologie et le partage des connaissances et à définir les grandes options et les meilleures pratiques dans ce domaine. 136. La CNUCED devrait continuer à fournir une assistance technique aux pays pour les examens de la politique des TIC et sur les politiques des TIC au profit des populations pauvres, le cadre juridique et réglementaire et le développement de l’économie de l’information, y compris dans le cadre du Partenariat sur la mesure de la contribution des TIC au développement lancé à la onzième session de la Conférence. Elle devrait poursuivre ses travaux sur la mesure de la contribution de l’économie de l’information et ses activités connexes de renforcement des capacités dans les pays en développement. 137. En sa capacité de secrétariat de la Commission de la science et de la technique au service du développement, la CNUCED devrait continuer à contribuer au suivi et à la mise en œuvre des conclusions du Sommet mondial sur la société de l’information. Bien à vous, Philippe _____ De : b.schombe at gmail.com [mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com] De la part de CAFEC Envoyé : jeudi, 24. janvier 2008 08:21 À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Cc : governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org; CONGO - Philippe Dam; CONGO - Anne-Laure Solnon Objet : [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UNCTAD XII - ministerial conference - 20-25 April 2008, Accra Dear Philippe, Thank you this important information. So for my selff english version of document is not problem , I can read and understand contents. But I can't share english version to all local actors because the official language used in DRC is french and 85%congolese actors read in french fo best understanding. Please , can you send both version english and french! We have 6 National Networks with 1347 differents organisations members.In my level, ACSIS sub Regional Coordinator for Central Africa, we have 10 countries with around 25000 actors online. Majority is frenchspoken. We need their contribution also. Kindly Baudouin 2008/1/23, CONGO - Philippe Dam : [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Dear all, This is a quick up date on the preparatory process leading towards the 12th Ministerial Conference of UNCTAD to be held in Accra, Ghana, 20-25 April 2008. Find attached the draft text circulated at the beginning of the negotiation dated November 13, as well as the consolidated text under negotiation dated 22-1-2008. A number of paragraphs refer to ICT issues, in particular in the follow up to the WSIS (see paragraphs 116-117, 134-137). Note that a UNCTAD Hearing with civil society will take place on 28 January 2008, with the possibility for NGO accredited to the UNCTAD process to make oral contributions on issues addressed or not yet addressed by the negotiation process. CONGO will be there and we would be happy to forward short comments on the UNCTAD XII text in relation to post WSIS issues (please send us comments at wsis at ngocongo.org preferably before this Friday so that we can compile something out of it). See below draft text relating to ICT. In addition, for your information, we've been informed that the UNCTAD Secretariat will organise a high level roundtable within the official programme of the UNCTAD XII meeting whose theme might be closely related to ICT issues. More information coming soon. All organizations that do not have observer status but wish to be part of the preparations and the Conference itself are encouraged to apply for accreditation. Deadline for sending the accreditation questionnaire is 31 January 2008. Information about the accreditation procedures and on line questionnaire: click here. Please visit here the CONGO website page on UNCTAD XII and its preparatory process. Best regards, Philippe ------------------------ ICT related Extracts of the UNCTAD XII negotiation document (see full text attached): Enhancing the enabling environment at all levels to strengthen productive capacity, trade and investment: mobilizing resources and harnessing knowledge for development (…) B. Policy responses (…) 116. Measures must be taken to narrow the digital divide and to ensure countries' full and effective participation in the knowledge-based economy. These should be supported by a fuller participation of developing countries in ICT-related international discussions, in particular those within the framework of the follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society and the discussions in the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. 117. At the national level, ICT policies and strategies need to create an enabling environment for the domestic information economy and a competitive ICT industry. The main elements include developing the ICT infrastructure and the telecommunications sector, upgrading digital skills, implementing a legal and regulatory framework to support ICT-related business development, trade and investment, e-government and technological innovation. These actions need to be integrated in national development plans or poverty reduction strategy papers, and ICT policies need to be regularly reviewed. (…) C. UNCTAD's contribution (…) 134. UNCTAD should further strengthen its research and analysis in the area of science, technology and innovation and ICTs, and should promote the design, implementation and monitoring of international and national policies in this area. UNCTAD should help strengthen North-South and South-South cooperation in harnessing knowledge and technology for development and assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition through science, technology and innovation policy reviews and related technical assistance. 135. UNCTAD should also support international debate, including within the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on science and technology, including ICTs, and their implications for development, and should assist developing countries in accessing technological innovations. UNCTAD should continue to help developing countries to participate effectively in international discussions on technology transfer and knowledge-sharing and to identify policy options and best practice in this area. 136. UNCTAD should continue to provide technical assistance to countries on ICT policy reviews, pro-poor ICT policies, legal and regulatory frameworks, and the development of the information economy, including through the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development launched at UNCTAD XI. It should continue to expand its work on the measurement of the information economy and its related capacity-building activities in developing countries. 137. In its capacity as secretariat to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, UNCTAD should pursue its role in the follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. (…) Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tdxiipcd1_fr.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 257888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 24 12:42:02 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: 20080124040004.C844E67889@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: My suggestion. Do the election by Mail/Post (SnailMail) 1. Post the ballot with Candidates Choices where it can be downloaded and printed. 2. The ballot will have a Postal Address to where it should be sent, and date it should be sent by. 3. Upon election closing date, post the received ballots to see if anyone's ballot was not yet received. if so, then accept that persons ballot by email correspondence. 4. Tally Basically, People just print the Ballot and send it in. -- Why? 1. People are not going to 'Flood' the system with ballots if they have to pay for postage stamps. 2. The sent/received ballot is proof enough of the persons existence. 3. If a person can afford to be online and on participate on this list, they certainly can afford a stamp. This election really does not need to be a big-production. I'm ok with sending a ballot to you in India or anywhere else in the World. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 25 01:47:01 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:47:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG In-Reply-To: <20080123104746.33E8F67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080123104746.33E8F67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <625E282E-5B3C-4D0B-88F2-591D54469810@Malcolm.id.au> 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jan 25 14:04:34 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:04:34 +1100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20080124040004.C844E67889@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0d8c01c85f85$28afd440$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Parminder, do you have candidates who have nominated? I don’t want to cause an election by nominating, but also I will have a bit of time available and would happily assist as co-ordinator with you if there are no suitable candidates. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 24 January 2008 15:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31st. Thanks. Parminder No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 - Release Date: 23/01/2008 10:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jan 25 14:13:41 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:13:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <0d8c01c85f85$28afd440$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <0da001c85f86$6f271db0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Sorry should have been off list… Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 26 January 2008 06:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator elections Hi Parminder, do you have candidates who have nominated? I don’t want to cause an election by nominating, but also I will have a bit of time available and would happily assist as co-ordinator with you if there are no suitable candidates. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 24 January 2008 15:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31st. Thanks. Parminder No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 - Release Date: 23/01/2008 10:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 25 14:31:21 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:31:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections Message-ID: but since you emailed on-list, my 2 cents: please do go ahead and nominate yourself : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 01/25/08 2:13 PM >>> Sorry should have been off list* Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 26 January 2008 06:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator elections Hi Parminder, do you have candidates who have nominated? I don't want to cause an election by nominating, but also I will have a bit of time available and would happily assist as co-ordinator with you if there are no suitable candidates. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 24 January 2008 15:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31st. Thanks. Parminder No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 - Release Date: 23/01/2008 10:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jan 25 16:25:58 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:25:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC review In-Reply-To: <20080124040008.0FB6BE18F5@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080124040008.0FB6BE18F5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC3EE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: This letter is a great idea, I would encourage you to send it. Perhaps add to the charter signing explanation that only people who sign the charter can vote? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC review Hi everyone >Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us - at least those of us who care enough about this group - to take up a comprehensive review of the IGC That something that prompted me to call for a comprehensive IGC review also whispered in my ears not to be surprised if no one responded :-). Well, the dose of medicine may have been too much for the present precarious state of the patient, but I do not think we have an alternative. We need to do this sooner or later. And therefore this thread will be kept open, and I may from time to time urge members to get on with this exercise. I have noticed that on this elist there are certain undefined factors - of timing and/ or content - that suddenly provoke some very energetic response and broad involvement. So we will wait for those moments in the context this important task.... :-) I have two offlist responses on what may be done to make the group more active in terms of its advocacy mandate, elements of which I will share with the list in the coming time. Meanwhile, I have a proposal. This is in context of the fact that 1. As stated, we urgently need to build/ strengthen the active advocacy component of this group, which is also required as per its charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html) 2. At Rio IGF I met some civil society members interested in IG issues, and willing to be actively involved in global CS advocacy on progressive directions in IG, who were not members of the IGC. Most did not know of its existence. The IGC charter also mandates the group to make active efforts of outreach to the wider civil society constituency. I solicit both advice and action by the members of this group in this direction. What I propose at this point is to write the following email to all those on the IGF, Rio, participants list that are from civil society, and appear likely to be interested. "Dear ...... This email is from the Co-Coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). IGC is a group of civil society actors who are interested in IG issues, and wish 'to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making' (to quote the charter of the group which may be seen at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html). Your participation at the IGF Rio indicates that you may be interested in associating with such a group. We are especially trying to reach out to such individuals who have not merely an academic interest in IG but are interested in pursuing a relatively active advocacy agenda in this area. Issues like openness of the Internet, freedom of expression, privacy, Internet and development and IPR versus public domain on the Internet are some important Internet policy areas which require civil society engagement at a global level. A civil society group like the IGC which conducts most of its activities online, supported with some crucial interventions in face-to-face meetings on IG issues, provides a useful forum for individuals who may be differently situated in terms of availability of time and other resources, but are nonetheless interested in impacting Internet policy making. IGC mailing list is also one of the most active forums of informed discussions on IG issues with very diverse viewpoints. Participation in these discussions may help you understand and shape civil society perspectives on IG. If you are interested in joining the group, at the first level you may subscribe to the IGC mailing list using the web interface at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/subscribe/governance . In addition, if you are willing to subscribe to the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ) please reply to this email with such indication, and we will add your name to the list of individuals who have subscribed to the IGC charter. Thanks..... " I am not sure if many will respond but we will be fulfilling one of the tasks mandated to us by the charter, and can also hope to get some new energy into IGC. If any member has any comments to offer on the above please do it over the next week. Parminder ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC review IGC members, Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us - at least those of us who care enough about this group - to take up a comprehensive review of the IGC in a back-to-basics/ bare-all spirit. We need to examine what we are here for, how well we are doing it, and which direction should we go from here. We did very briefly try some such review during the face-to-face IGC meeting at Rio, but the time was too short for anything worthwhile, and the participants' minds and energies were mostly occupied with what was happening in the IGF. However some concrete suggestions did come up, and I as a co-coordinator promised to initiate a discussion on the IGC email list on rethinking/ restructuring IGC. We all can see that there is a certain limbo that this group is at present caught in. Apart from some continued high quality discussions there appears to be not much will and/or energy vis-à-vis an activist advocacy role in this group, which is one of its primary mandate as per the charter adopted in 2005 ( pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). For instance, we are not making much progress towards developing a caucus position for the very important Feb. consultations for the IGF. I had given out a call seeking volunteers for the position of co-coordinator, and I have only received one name till now. Many members who had earlier been very involved in active advocacy kind of roles seem to have reduced their involvement and many other members who are very involved in discussions on this list seem to either not commit themselves to participating in activist roles of developing common positions etc, or they are unable yet to figure out the best way to do this. And I think it is a good time to find out the reasons for this situation in a constructive spirit of moving forward with a greater clarity of what is the best role for this group, and how can that be done most effectively. Such an exercise will help people shape their involvement (or, well, probably withdrawal of involvement) in this group. This in my opinion should be a time for all of us to come out clearly with how we see this group, and where do we want to take it from here. While this process may necessarily mean that many contentions would come out in the open, and we will try to figure out what best can we do about them, we hope that sufficient amount of civility is maintained in this process. This doesn't mean we need to necessarily moderate our views - I think, for a start, we need some very open and honest discussion here - but only that we do not get personal and abusive. While I will come out with my personal views on this subject separately, in order to set the ball rolling I will mention some of my 'more neutral' viewpoints. I think that the politics of technologies (or ICTs) are impacting our societies in a major way, and unfortunately there is great lack of awareness (and, consequently, involvement) of the public at large about how the manner of development of these technologies may underlie the very shaping of our societies. IGC is one of few public interest groups at the global level that is active in this very important area. Lack of public interest advocacy and involvement, which is what our inactivity/ abdication will contribute to, will make for dominant interests shaping the world in manner that serves their interests even more. All of us who fear this possibility, while also seeing the opportunity in the new technologies for a freer as well as a more equal and just world, and have some knowledge, expertise and 'positions/ connections/ linkages' in this area, should sincerely explore how best can we further the public interest through this group. On the process side, IGC also represents a unique experiment in global civil society organization, and it is up to us to prove that such new networked forms of civil society organization and advocacy can be successful. Recent emails by Garth and Dan, among others, do discuss some of the issues mentioned above. Hopefully we can have some involved discussions in the next few weeks on these issues which may help us focus and structure IGC more purposefully. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 19:33:35 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:33:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Michael Gurstein invited you to join the group "Save Community Access "... Message-ID: <007f01c85fb3$195191e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> We invite those you on Facebook to join the group "Save Community Access/ Sauvez l’Accès Public" and help us send a message to the politicians on the importance of access to the Internet for all -- even those without their own home computers and Internet access.. Please consider inviting your Facebook friends as well (and hopefully their friends) and let's see if we can get a snowball going here which will demonstrate to one and all (and not just in Canada) the importance of community Internet access and the effective uses that this enables! Just click on this link http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=599072456&k=S2LY4X5XVVTF6E11VJ53X MG -----Original Message----- From: Facebook [mailto:groupmaster+zl1=o1oz at facebookmail.com] Sent: January 25, 2008 4:15 PM To: michael.gurstein Subject: Michael Gurstein invited you to join the group "Save Community Access/ Sauvez l’Accès Public " Michael invited you to join the Facebook group "Save Community Access ". To see more details and confirm this group invitation, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=599072456&k=S2LY4X5XVVTF6E11VJ53X Everyone can join Facebook. To register, go to: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=599072456&k=S2LY4X5XVVTF6E11VJ53X&r Thanks, The Facebook Team ___________________ This e-mail may contain promotional materials. If you do not wish to receive future commercial mailings from Facebook, please click on the link below. Facebook's offices are located at 156 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?u=1074078109&k=d2a0e9 !DSPAM:2676,479a7b9c198771273721054! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 26 16:11:26 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:11:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <0d8c01c85f85$28afd440$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080126074110.BFA4C6781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Ian Thanks for volunteering. Since your offer is already public, Let me reply to it publicly. Though you say you do not want to cause an election, I think election is not that bad a thing at all. It wakes up members and makes them re-commit themselves to this group and its organizational structure. so I am rather in favor of a friendly contest, so that there is a clear process of endorsement by the group. David Goldstein is the other member who has offered himself. Parminder _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:05 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] co-coordinator elections Hi Parminder, do you have candidates who have nominated? I don't want to cause an election by nominating, but also I will have a bit of time available and would happily assist as co-ordinator with you if there are no suitable candidates. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 24 January 2008 15:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31st. Thanks. Parminder No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 - Release Date: 23/01/2008 10:24 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.11/1243 - Release Date: 25/01/2008 11:24 -------------- 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 Sat Jan 26 10:32:18 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:32:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] US voting moves online in Democratic global primary Message-ID: US voting moves online in Democratic global primary By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews January 25, 2008 Art. Ref.: http://www.betanews.com/article/US_voting_moves_online_in_Democratic_global_primary/1201299012 Print: http://www.betanews.com/article/print/US_voting_moves_online_in_Democratic_global_primary/1201299012 -- The Internet and the voting process are developing a manifold relationship. In February, US voting will actually move to the Web with the Democratic Party's first ever online global primary. Meanwhile, increasingly, voters of all persuasions also have a number of Web-based resources available to them. But still, one site is cautioning visitors not to send in a voter registration request form by "regular e-mail," for security's sake. Although the online global Democratic primary will happen in cyberspace, the primary will be held in conjunction with a series of regional global caucus meetings that will take place in several locations throughout the globe for the purpose of choosing 22 delgates to represent Democrats Abroad at the Democratic National Convention. To vote in the US Presidential Elections in November, all overseas American voters must register with the local voting authorities in the place where they last lived in the US. This process, though, has been automated on Democrats Abroad's voter registration Web site, VoteFromAbroad.org. Many of the other Web-based resources for voters are also geared to people living overseas, who for obvious reasons might find it more difficult to get their voting questions answered by local authorities in person or by phone. But there's a wealth of information on these sites for stateside voters, too. One of these sites advises people to get non-partison information about candidates, their voting records, and their positions on issues at the FVAP (Federal Voting Assistance) Web Site, as well as to read their hometown newspapers online and search the Internet for articles and information. The Overseas Vote Foundation runs a particularly comprehensive site for overseas voters. That site does warn voters, though, not to use e-mail as a means of registering to vote, "unless you have some special type of secure e-mail or file transfer mechanism." -- Links: VoteFromAbroad.org http://votefromabroad.org/ FVAP (Federal Voting Assistance) Web Site http://www.fvap.gov/ The Overseas Vote Foundation https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/overseas/home.htm --- -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 avri at psg.com Fri Jan 25 23:57:06 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:57:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54ABBEB6-18C9-409F-9D7D-7D28CC36F941@psg.com> 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 Sun Jan 27 11:15:09 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:15:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections References: <54ABBEB6-18C9-409F-9D7D-7D28CC36F941@psg.com> Message-ID: correction: they would then send the ballot in via regular _mail_ as specified in Yehuda's suggestion. not email as i mis-wrote. though i suppose it could be done by email as long as it was from the address which received the direct emailing. and of course the recipient would have to guarantee to only list who voted and the count and not he details of anyone's votes. i am working with developers on a fix for the faults in the online voting system we used in the past, and hope i have an improved version to offer before the elections of 2009. i am sorry it was not ready in time for this year, but volunteer efforts being what they are, nothing could be done. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Date: 25 January 2008 23:57:06 EST > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] co-coordinator elections > > hi, > > i like the idea and would like to offer an alternative, one could > use the same criteria as when we vote on line, to qualify for > voting, one has been on the last as a certain date and has a human > name associated with the email address. > > then a ballot would be sent individually, by email, to every > qualified voter on the list. > > they would then send via regular email in to a trusted counter. > > a. > > > On 24 Jan 2008, at 18:42, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > >> My suggestion. >> >> Do the election by Mail/Post (SnailMail) >> 1. Post the ballot with Candidates Choices where it can be >> downloaded and >> printed. >> 2. The ballot will have a Postal Address to where it should be >> sent, and date >> it should be sent by. >> 3. Upon election closing date, post the received ballots to see if >> anyone's >> ballot was not yet received. >> if so, then accept that persons ballot by email correspondence. >> 4. Tally >> >> Basically, People just print the Ballot and send it in. >> >> -- >> >> Why? >> 1. People are not going to 'Flood' the system with ballots if they >> have to pay >> for postage stamps. >> 2. The sent/received ballot is proof enough of the persons existence. >> 3. If a person can afford to be online and on participate on this >> list, they >> certainly can afford a stamp. >> >> This election really does not need to be a big-production. >> I'm ok with sending a ballot to you in India or anywhere else in >> the World. >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 28 02:56:53 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <102a01c86183$60efd6c0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Do we really need to go to the trouble of snail mail voting for this? I can’t imagine mass fraud or any attempt at capture – and if there was, we have an appeals mechanism chaired by Izumi that could reschedule a vote if we really had problems that couldn’t be sorted out by our trusted counter I like Avri’s previous suggestion, ie ,to qualify for voting, one has been on the last as a certain date and has a human name associated with the email address. then a ballot would be sent individually, by email, to every qualified voter on the list. they would then send via regular email in to a trusted counter. Ian Peter _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: 28 January 2008 03:15 To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] co-coordinator elections correction: they would then send the ballot in via regular _mail_ as specified in Yehuda's suggestion. not email as i mis-wrote. though i suppose it could be done by email as long as it was from the address which received the direct emailing. and of course the recipient would have to guarantee to only list who voted and the count and not he details of anyone's votes. i am working with developers on a fix for the faults in the online voting system we used in the past, and hope i have an improved version to offer before the elections of 2009. i am sorry it was not ready in time for this year, but volunteer efforts being what they are, nothing could be done. a. Begin forwarded message: From: Avri Doria Date: 25 January 2008 23:57:06 EST To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] co-coordinator elections hi, i like the idea and would like to offer an alternative, one could use the same criteria as when we vote on line, to qualify for voting, one has been on the last as a certain date and has a human name associated with the email address. then a ballot would be sent individually, by email, to every qualified voter on the list. they would then send via regular email in to a trusted counter. a. On 24 Jan 2008, at 18:42, HYPERLINK "mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com"yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: My suggestion. Do the election by Mail/Post (SnailMail) 1. Post the ballot with Candidates Choices where it can be downloaded and printed. 2. The ballot will have a Postal Address to where it should be sent, and date it should be sent by. 3. Upon election closing date, post the received ballots to see if anyone's ballot was not yet received. if so, then accept that persons ballot by email correspondence. 4. Tally Basically, People just print the Ballot and send it in. -- Why? 1. People are not going to 'Flood' the system with ballots if they have to pay for postage stamps. 2. The sent/received ballot is proof enough of the persons existence. 3. If a person can afford to be online and on participate on this list, they certainly can afford a stamp. This election really does not need to be a big-production. I'm ok with sending a ballot to you in India or anywhere else in the World. -- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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: 269.19.12/1245 - Release Date: 26/01/2008 15:45 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.12/1245 - Release Date: 26/01/2008 15:45 -------------- 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 vb at bertola.eu Mon Jan 28 03:24:46 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:24:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20080124040004.C844E67889@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080124040004.C844E67889@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <479D914E.8050800@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > I am extending the date for submission of candidature for co-coordinator > election till the end of this month, i.e. the 31^st . Thanks. Parminder I would like to encourage people to submit nominations or nominate themselves. I would have been available to continue if no candidates had emerged, but I think that it's a good idea to rotate regularly, and also I realize that I am involved in so many things (only a small part of which are IG-related) and so there could be people who can devote more time and effort than I can. Some good nominations are already emerging and, while I think I'll still be around, I look forward to an interesting influx of new energy into the coordination of the caucus. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 04:28:10 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:28:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <102a01c86183$60efd6c0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <102a01c86183$60efd6c0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: 2008/1/28 Ian Peter : > > > > > Do we really need to go to the trouble of snail mail voting for this? I hope not! > can't imagine mass fraud or any attempt at capture – and if there was, we > have an appeals mechanism chaired by Izumi that could reschedule a vote if > we really had problems that couldn't be sorted out by our trusted counter > > > > I like Avri's previous suggestion, ie > > > > ,to qualify for voting, one has been on the last as a certain date and has a > human name associated with the email address. Works for me! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 28 10:44:37 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:44:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of the advisory group's discussion about In-Reply-To: <20080124040042.7DD4FEC011@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> References: <20080124040042.7DD4FEC011@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: At 9:29 AM +0530 1/24/08, Parminder wrote: > >Parminder: > > "excerpts" means in this case the posts were extracted from the >>larger discussion on the list, not that portions were taken from >>individual posts (unless to anonymize etc.) Not a summary either as >>I mistakenly characterized. Nothing has been sanitized. Sorry for >>any confusion > >Thanks for the explanation, Adam. > >>Jeremy: >>A member of the advisory group suggested the discussion be made >>public. See writer B on page 6. > >>Adam > >A good thing is a good thing whatever its causal factors. Though it is >difficult to believe that this move, and the previous one in September last >year to publish a summary of closed door proceedings of MAG, has nothing to >do with UN SG's direction to improve the flow of information to >stakeholders.... Parminder, Hi. I think we can be pretty certain both were a result of the Secretary General's request for greater transparency. Advisory group meeting notes were a response to suggestions made during the open consultation September 3. And while it's not explicit in the advisory group's email, I think pretty clear the reason for making the email available was to follow the SG's instruction. >Adam, your simplistic explanation above raises 2 points I thought by pointing to the post where it was suggested people could see for themselves what was said rather than hearing my interpretation. You don't need filters when the source is available. >On the negative side - does it mean future email and face-to-face >discussions will not have open full transcripts (if anonymized). (Negative?) Not yet been discussed on the advisory group list if future email from the list would be made available. I hope it will be. I expect there'll be some issues people won't want made public, but as a general objective I can't see why other threads shouldn't be released. But I'd stick to threads rather than the whole list. If you think the email extract useful then please send a note to the secretariat saying so. Showing appreciation's perhaps a good way to help it continue: say thanks and ask that as a general trend it continues. By full transcripts of face-to-face meetings do you mean real-time transcriptions of the closed advisory group meetings, same as we have from the open consultations? Best I can remember no one's suggested this. I imagine the main problem would be resources: money to pay for the scribes, and also perhaps some technical set-up issues. But you could suggest it. In the meantime I'm expecting reports from the advisory group meetings to continue. >On the positive side - if one of the MAG members asks for it (which we urge >CS members of MAG to do regularly) will they be made open? Will what be made open, the currently closed advisory group meetings? Has the caucus agreed it wants this? I think a bad idea. One thing I would like to see is a roll-call of who attends the closed meetings, particularly who the observers are. Adam >Jeremy's observation is with respect to the fact that we have regularly >asked for providing records of MAGs closed door deliberations, and in >September consultations these points were added to outcome doc on the basis >of CS inputs, though we are under no illusions about the power of these >interventions vis a vis UN SG's diktat. > >This is also not to minimize MAG's own initiative to open up its >deliberations which speaks of their increased confidence in being able to >relate to and be accountable to different stakeholders. We do hope that such >reforms keep taking place, and as Jeremy says CS and IGC has an important >role here..... I mean here to stress the significance of Jeremy's >observation and imploring.... > >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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Jan 28 11:06:53 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] China invents the decimal network Message-ID: <20080128160653.GA1198@nic.fr> Too good to keep it secret :-) http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6345144.html Decimal network security address begins operation + - 10:33, January 25, 2008 China's decimal network security address was officially launched. China has made a fundamental breakthrough in its Internet development; and actual use has been successful. The birth of decimal network technology makes China the only country able to unify domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into the text of a metric system; the second, after the United States (US), in the world to have root servers and IP address hardware connectivity servers and its own domain name, IP address and MAC address resources; and enables our country to become the world's second country (after the US) to possess and control scarce network resources such as network distribution, domain names and addresses. It puts a crack in the US's monopoly over the Internet, based on hexadecimal technology; and is a major, independent technical innovation of the Internet in China. Features of China's decimal network security address takes the digital domain at the core of the Internet domain names analytical system -- like calling the same input Internet -- and there is obviously the safety of its system addresses on the Internet. It can isolate and effectively protect the user's privacy. At the same time, the metric system has a massive network of "domestic" information resources that are allocated by the Chinese automatically and are independently managed. This secure address can set aside addresses and domain names in accordance with national economic and social development needs. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 28 11:12:04 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:42:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] China invents the decimal network In-Reply-To: <20080128160653.GA1198@nic.fr> References: <20080128160653.GA1198@nic.fr> Message-ID: <002a01c861c8$86f78120$94e68360$@net> Remember the last such press release out of china? Ipv9 or ipv10 or something equally Jim Fleming-ish Turned out later that it was a local vendor who managed to get an endorsement from the ministry or some organ affiliated to it. And found gullible and suitably patriotic reporters who were eager to believe those guys had done wonders and eaten cucumbers .. This is very likely something very similar srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:37 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] China invents the decimal network > > Too good to keep it secret :-) > > http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6345144.html > > Decimal network security address begins operation > + - > 10:33, January 25, 2008 > > China's decimal network security address was officially launched. China > has made a fundamental breakthrough in its Internet development; and > actual use has been successful. > > The birth of decimal network technology makes China the only country > able to unify domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into the > text of a metric system; the second, after the United States (US), in > the world to have root servers and IP address hardware connectivity > servers and its own domain name, IP address and MAC address resources; > and enables our country to become the world's second country (after the > US) to possess and control scarce network resources such as network > distribution, domain names and addresses. It puts a crack in the US's > monopoly over the Internet, based on hexadecimal technology; and is a > major, independent technical innovation of the Internet in China. > > Features of China's decimal network security address takes the digital > domain at the core of the Internet domain names analytical system -- > like calling the same input Internet -- and there is obviously the > safety of its system addresses on the Internet. It can isolate and > effectively protect the user's privacy. At the same time, the metric > system has a massive network of "domestic" information resources that > are allocated by the Chinese automatically and are independently > managed. This secure address can set aside addresses and domain names > in accordance with national economic and social development needs. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jan 28 11:13:24 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:13:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] China invents the decimal network References: <20080128160653.GA1198@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DFB0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Stephane What does it mean in practice? More competiion? Fragmentation? More Control? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Gesendet: Mo 28.01.2008 17:06 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] China invents the decimal network Too good to keep it secret :-) http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6345144.html Decimal network security address begins operation + - 10:33, January 25, 2008 China's decimal network security address was officially launched. China has made a fundamental breakthrough in its Internet development; and actual use has been successful. The birth of decimal network technology makes China the only country able to unify domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into the text of a metric system; the second, after the United States (US), in the world to have root servers and IP address hardware connectivity servers and its own domain name, IP address and MAC address resources; and enables our country to become the world's second country (after the US) to possess and control scarce network resources such as network distribution, domain names and addresses. It puts a crack in the US's monopoly over the Internet, based on hexadecimal technology; and is a major, independent technical innovation of the Internet in China. Features of China's decimal network security address takes the digital domain at the core of the Internet domain names analytical system -- like calling the same input Internet -- and there is obviously the safety of its system addresses on the Internet. It can isolate and effectively protect the user's privacy. At the same time, the metric system has a massive network of "domestic" information resources that are allocated by the Chinese automatically and are independently managed. This secure address can set aside addresses and domain names in accordance with national economic and social development needs. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Jan 28 11:24:03 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:24:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: China invents the decimal network In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DFB0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080128160653.GA1198@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DFB0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20080128162353.GA3282@nic.fr> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Kleinwächter wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > What does it mean in practice? More competiion? Fragmentation? More > Control? It's pure b...s...t and therefore it means nothing. This article is so delirious it is "not even false". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Jan 28 13:42:38 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:42:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <82F8026B-FC34-44A7-BA34-DABC5684E129@ras.eu.org> Hi Andrea and all, Le 24 janv. 08 à 09:36, Andrea Glorioso a écrit : > Second, the fact that the WP29 considered an IP address to be > "personal > data" in the sense of the relevant European data protection Directives > has been known since some time - the WP29 has already issued some > opinions on this particular point (I can provide the references if > somebody is interested). True it's not new, but reaffirming this is really important, as this commonly admitted (at least in Europe) status of the IP address as a personal data (more exactly, an "indirectly nominative data") is being questioned, most notably by IPR holders willing to take actions against P2P sharing activities. This has been the case in France, with courts backing this position from IPR holders, see: http:// www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.17/ip-personal-data-fr > Again, these are *opinions*, not binding > laws, Unfortunately.. [...] > Incidentally, once might also argue that deep-packet inspection > ("network neutrality" anyone?) breaches data protection laws across > Europe, unless there is a clear consent from the end-user. Care to > guess how many ISPs in the EU actually do request that "clear > consent"? All of them.. by contract (you know, these "general conditions" that no one reads, especially when one needs to subscribe to an ISP anyway)! Actually, you cannot use the breaching of data protection law argument in this case - as long the data remains managed by the ISP and not disclosed to anyone else - since ISPs obviously need to process you data, starting from your IP address, to deliver the service. So, the answer to Karl's question ("whether an ISP or core provider's use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP Reset packet (for the purpose of, for example, "slowing" bittorrent traffic) is a usurpation of that personally identifiable information") is no. This is indeed a network neutrality issue, but not a data protection issue. 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Jan 28 16:50:12 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:50:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: <82F8026B-FC34-44A7-BA34-DABC5684E129@ras.eu.org> References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> <82F8026B-FC34-44A7-BA34-DABC5684E129@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <479E4E14.5070609@cavebear.com> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > So, the answer to Karl's question ("whether an ISP or core provider's > use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP Reset packet (for the > purpose of, for example, "slowing" bittorrent traffic) is a usurpation > of that personally identifiable information") is no. This is indeed a > network neutrality issue, but not a data protection issue. Perhaps there is a slightly more accurate way to state your conclusion? Might not one say that that the use of the IP address is indeed a usurpation of personally identifiable information, but due to a contractual waiver, it is not a violation of EU data protection laws? (In addition, perhaps it may be a violation of other laws that make it improper for someone to use the identity of another to represent themselves as that other, which is exactly what the Reset packets do.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Jan 29 07:32:14 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:32:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: <479E4E14.5070609@cavebear.com> References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> <82F8026B-FC34-44A7-BA34-DABC5684E129@ras.eu.org> <479E4E14.5070609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <8921605C-ED2E-43C9-A93F-709A016F101F@ras.eu.org> Le 28 janv. 08 à 22:50, Karl Auerbach a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> So, the answer to Karl's question ("whether an ISP or core >> provider's use of a person's IP address to generate a TCP Reset >> packet (for the purpose of, for example, "slowing" bittorrent >> traffic) is a usurpation of that personally identifiable >> information") is no. This is indeed a network neutrality issue, >> but not a data protection issue. > > Perhaps there is a slightly more accurate way to state your > conclusion? > Might not one say that that the use of the IP address is indeed a > usurpation of personally identifiable information, but due to a > contractual waiver, it is not a violation of EU data protection laws? I really fail to see where is the "usurpation of personally identifiable information" in this process. The point is not to legitimate such purposes (here, "slowing" P2P traffic) but rather to identify the right issue and, if possible, to take the right action against it. My opinion is that a legal analysis/action based on data protection law is not the right answer. The right answer would be, I think, to analyze the process in terms of network neutrality as well as in terms of contractual/commercial law (e.g. considering such provisions in the ISP general conditions as abusive clauses). Although this would hardly be considered as a valid argument in court in such a case. Besides this, I hardly understand what an "usurpation of personally identifable information" could mean, though I know what is an "usurpation of identity". But these are different concepts, and the fact that the former directly implies the latter in the process we're discussing (TCP reset packet) probably remains to be demonstrated (from a legal point of view). 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 karl at cavebear.com Tue Jan 29 12:50:59 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:50:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says In-Reply-To: <8921605C-ED2E-43C9-A93F-709A016F101F@ras.eu.org> References: <4796385E.90109@cavebear.com> <82F8026B-FC34-44A7-BA34-DABC5684E129@ras.eu.org> <479E4E14.5070609@cavebear.com> <8921605C-ED2E-43C9-A93F-709A016F101F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <479F6783.9010703@cavebear.com> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Besides this, I hardly understand what an "usurpation of personally > identifable information" could mean, though I know what is an > "usurpation of identity". But these are different concepts I'm looking at this with California eyes (California having right to privacy, unfortunately a right narrowly interpreted, in its state Constitution); and I suspect that you are looking at it using EU eyes. That difference, understandingly, would create some differences in the way we use words. The way I see it use of an IP address by a unauthorized third party to create a packet that purports to come from one of the two real TCP endpoints is both a usurpation of identity and also a possibly unauthorized use of information (the IP address) that can be related to a individual person. The first aspect - the usurpation of identity may be actionable under various non-privacy laws, criminal and civil, ranging from deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud to damage to reputation. (That last aspect might be, for instance, ones reputation for running a reliable network service - such a reputation being damaged should that service be perceived as generating an excessive number of TCP Resets.) The latter aspect, the mishandling of information (the IP address) that relates to an identifiable person, is where I perceive that the privacy aspects are to be found. Perhaps I should have said "misuse" rather than "usurpation" with regard to the handling of the IP address as personally identifiable information. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jan 30 13:53:20 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:53:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google Eyes Free Spectrum Message-ID: Between The Lines Google Eyes Free Spectrum Elizabeth Woyke 01.30.08 forbes.com Art. Ref.: http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2008/01/30/spectrum-auction-google-tech-wire-cx_ew_0130auction.html Print: http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/30/spectrum-auction-google-tech-wire-cx_ew_0130auction_print.html - The ongoing auction of choice, 700 megahertz radio spectrum by the Federal Communications Commission is a game for high rollers, including telco giants and Google. One company will likely pay more than $4.6 billion for the rights to that realm. Through that space, the auction winner--and competitor--could eventually beam all kinds of signals, including voice, digital video, data, to your toaster. But there is a cheaper way to get data through the airwaves. Just ask Google . Google intends to be a big player in the airwaves. At the recent World Economic Conference in Davos, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said that mobile devices with location-based advertising could spark a "huge revolution," more interesting than the personal computer. But along with taking part in the FCC's auction, Google has also been trying to get into the so-called "white space"--slivers of unlicensed, unused spectrum that lie between television channels. And that makes the telcos nervous. The white space channels were originally designed to prevent radio waves on adjoining channels from bleeding into each other. They're considered too narrow to be auctioned off. Even so, they're in a choice portion of the spectrum where analog television currently lives, an area that could be used for data services, much like the 700 MHz spectrum. Use--if approved--would begin in February 2009. The idea of utilizing white space spectrum has bounced around for years, stymied by concerns of TV signal interference and the objections of the powerful broadcast lobby. Then anticipation surrounding the 700 MHz auction renewed interest in all areas of spectrum, says Scott Ellison, IDC's vice president of mobile and wireless communications. "People were looking at other things in the broadcast space … tech companies probably thought, 'Can't we start using this spectrum in a more efficient way?' " Exactly what Google would do in the white space is a subject of debate. Is Google's zeal for white space a hedge against losing the auction? That seems a bit of a stretch, particularly since there has been widespread speculation that Google isn't worried about winning the auction--just about ensuring that anyone can send data through the spectrum. Last summer, Google nudged the FCC to adopt a provision that gets triggered if the auction price exceeds $4.6 billion. That provision ensures that networks built in the newly sold spectrum would be open to all third-party devices. By actively bidding, Google can make sure that the final price is north of that magic reserve number--and so make the spectrum open. Google's interest could simply be a land grab for any available slice of spectrum. "Anything that provides a way to push ads while not benefiting existing carriers is beneficial for Google," says Rory Altman, director of telecom consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co. Or it could create a low-cost experimental playing field that lets technology companies try out new services without the added cost of spectrum access. Companies "could experiment with new devices and services away from the incumbents, then use the experience to expand into other [spectrum] areas," notes Phil Asmundson, U.S. Technology, Media & Telecom Industry Leader at Deloitte & Touche. The vacant channels have also attracted other technology bigwigs, including Microsoft, Intel, Dell and Hewlett-Packard. In late 2006, those companies joined with several other firms and organizations--and Google--to form the White Spaces Coalition, which advocates using the unlicensed space. In 2007, coalition members gave the FCC two portable wireless devices designed to operate in the white spaces without interfering with adjourning television broadcast channels. The FCC reported in July 2007 that a gadget built by Philips Electronics didn't consistently detect broadcast signals and one built by Microsoft had flunked the tests. But a failed first attempt has never stopped a technologist. The companies regrouped and by January had resubmitted four coalition-made devices to the FCC for fresh testing. The process is expected to take two to three months. A successful trial could usher in a new set of competitors for telcos, which are already battling cable providers and satellite TV companies for customers for data services. That's a big growth sector for telcos, which have been struggling to offset declining voice revenues. That's spurred No. 3 and No. 4 operators Sprint and T-Mobile to ask the FCC to regulate use of white spaces and earmark it for established carriers. Google responded by requesting the FCC ignore the carriers' request, describing their proposal as "not the most efficient, or even marginal, use of the white spaces." AT&T and Verizon haven't publicly opposed the use of white spaces, presumably because their larger networks better shield them from such competition. "They are so advantaged in the amount of spectrum they own, these small slivers aren't all that threatening to them," says Asmundson. They also know how complicated it is to build out a profitable service. Mobile data services generally require a good chunk of spectrum--say 20 MHz to 30 MHz--to support a business. "You could have some interesting applications in these little bands, but the technology is not at the point to do anything in a major way," says Ellison. Still, the idea of Google wiggling into the white space as a cheap route to consumers has the carriers watching their back. Adds Ellison, "Google has the heft, money and know-how to play all the fields and see what works." --- -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