From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 19:24:59 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:24:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] (REMINDER: Deadline 15 July) 3rd GigaNet References: Message-ID: <486819CB.4C6AB2C8@ix.netcom.com> Meryem and all, Will do on the distribution widely. I am sure that the social engineering types will salivate appropriately. Meryem Marzouki wrote: > [Apologies in case of multiple reception.] > > Dear colleagues, dear all, > > Please find hereafter the Call for Papers for the 3rd GigaNet Annual > Symposium, that will be held in Hyderabad, India, on 2 December 2008, > the day prior to the UN Internet Governance Forum. > The GigaNet Annual Symposium is an opportunity to showcase some of > the best current research on Internet Governance from around the > world and provides a venue for scholars to discuss and debate these > crucial issues. > Previous GigaNet Symposia have been held in Athens, Greece, in 2006 > and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2007, in conjuction with the annual > meetings of the UN IGF. > The GigaNet Program Committee encourages all scholars in the field to > submit proposals on their current Internet Governance related > research. Deadline for submissions is 15 July 2008. > > Please distribute widely. The URL of the Symposium CFP is: http:// > tinyurl.com/ynsuuf > > Best regards, > Meryem Marzouki (2008 GigaNet Program Committee Chair) > > -- > Meryem Marzouki > LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS > 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris > http://www-polytic.lip6.fr > :::::::::::::::::::::::::: > Third Annual GigaNet Symposium > 2 December 2008 - Hyderabad, India > Hyderabad International Conference Center (HICC) > Call for Papers > > The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is a > scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet > governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and > facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters > between scholars and governments, international organizations, the > private sector, and civil society. > > Each year, GigaNet organizes a one-day research symposium in > conjunction with the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > and in the same premises. After the first two editions in Athens, > Greece (October 2006) and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (November 2007), the > third GigaNet Annual Symposium will be held on December 2, 2008, in > Hyderabad, India, the day before the 3rd IGF meeting. Attendance at > the Symposium will be open to all and free of charge. The Symposium > will be at the same location as the IGF and registration with the UN > as an IGF participant may be necessary to gain entry to the building. > > This is a call for papers from scholars interested in presenting an > original research paper at the conference. > > Submission topics > In addition to papers on methodological aspects of Internet > governance-related studies, this year's Symposium particularly > encourages submissions on the following themes, which are described > in more detail below: > 1. Comparing Internet Governance to other Global Governance Domains > 2. Networked Governance Theories and the Institutionalization of > Internet Governance > 3. The Role of NGOs, Social Movements and Civil Society in Internet > Governance > 4. Year 3 of the UN Internet Governance Forum: Assessing its > Structure, Process and Impact > 5. Law and Jurisdictions in Internet Governance > 6. Copyright Protection, Internet Service Providers and Technical > Mechanisms of Control > 7. Internationalized Domain Names: Expanding Access or Tower of Babel? > > Submission requirements > Applicants should submit: 1) an abstract of 800-1000 words, in > English, of the proposed paper that describes the main research > question(s), methods employed, and the paper’s relevance and value to > the thematic area; and 2) a one page summary curriculum vitae listing > in particular the applicant’s current institutional affiliation(s), > advanced degrees, scholarly publications relevant to Internet > governance, and web sites, if available. > > Submission materials should be emailed directly to the chairperson of > the 2008 Program Committee, Dr. Meryem Marzouki, at > Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr by no later than July 15, 2008, midnight GMT. > > Members of the 2008 program committee will review submissions > according to the same criteria. In order to ensure fairness of the > evaluation process, submissions that do not conform to the requested > format will not be considered. > > The Program Committee will notify applicants of its decisions via > email by September 15, 2008. > > A full paper upon which oral or poster presentation will be based > must be delivered to the same address by October 10, 2008, midnight > GMT in order for the author(s) to be included in the program. > > While GigaNet asserts no copyright to authors’ work, it is expected > that the version of the paper presented orally or as poster will be > made available for posting on the GigaNet website. > > Travel scholarships for a few outstanding accepted papers may be > available for scholars who would otherwise be unable to attend. > Applicants who are accepted will be informed of these opportunities > after September 15. > > 2008 GigaNet Symposium Program Committee: > - Ana Abreu, Labeurb/Unicamp and Paulista University, Campinas (SP), > Brazil > - Slavka Antonova, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand > - Meryem Marzouki, LIP6/PolyTIC-CNRS Laboratory, Paris, France (Chair) > - John Mathiason, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, > Syracuse University, Syracuse (NY), USA > - Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, > Syracuse (NY), USA > - Max Senges, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain > - Rolf H. Weber, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland > > Important dates: > - 15 July 2008: abstract submission deadline (to be sent to: > Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr) > - 15 September 2008: notification to applicants > - 10 October 2008: full papers due > - 15 October 2008: 2008 GigaNet symposium program finalized > - 2 December 2008: 2008 GigaNet symposium, HICC, Hyderabad, India > > Topics Description > > 1. Comparing Internet Governance to other Global Governance Domains > The concept of global governance has flourished in a number of > fields: trade, security, environment, development -- as well as > Internet. However, most general analyses of global governance ignore > global Internet governance. Conversely, very few Internet governance > analyses are conducted through comparative frameworks. Submissions > are invited to help frame Internet governance in a broader, global > governance perspective. What could be learnt from experiences of > global governance in other fields? Are there any general instruments > and methods of global governance, irrespective of the domain area it > addresses? Could some similarities or invariants of a global > governance process be identified? > > 2. Networked Governance Theories and the Institutionalization of > Internet Governance > The global policy discourse on Internet governance involves more > diverse actors and newly created institutions. There is a need to > explore the dynamics of this changing institutionalization process > through theoretical and empirical analysis. Recent work explores > network forms of organization in political and governance contexts, > at national and international levels, most notably with the concept > of “transgovernmental networks” to solve sector-specific problems. We > call for papers that apply, test and criticize ideas of “networked > governance” in the context of global Internet governance. We > encourage submissions that analyze collaborative policy-making in > related institutions and interactions between them. We are especially > interested in papers that critically analyze these forms of > governance in terms of fairness and accountability and their > relationship to democratic principles. Can presently excluded or > minority communities enhance their participation? Beyond the expert > discourse and the interplay amongst dedicated stakeholders, can > networked governance represent people, rather than just established > interests and agencies? What are the available tools and practices to > facilitate their participation and deliberation, in terms of > discourse, collaboration and decision-making? > > 3. Role of NGOs, Social Movements and Civil Society in Internet > Governance > Important but subtle transformations have occurred in the role and > participation of non-governmental and non-business actors in the 6 > years since the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). WSIS > witnessed a somewhat usual situation, where organized social actors > participated from inside the process through structured non- > governmental organizations, and social movements exercised some more > radical pressure from the outside. Since the creation of the UN > Internet Governance Forum (IGF), this mode of participation has > turned into a “consensus-based cooperation”, where civil society > actors are supposed to contribute on equal footing with governments > and business actors, in most cases in their individual capacity and > rather disconnected from social movements. We seek papers that > analyze the evolution of involved social actors and their > structuring, especially with regards to the historical evolution of > the concept of civil society, and to explore in which ways and to > what extent these transformations may be related to the move from > government to governance. > > 4. Year 3 of the UN Internet Governance Forum: Assessing its > Structure, Process and Impact > The WSIS created and mandated the IGF to address critical, value- > adding global Internet governance functions that cannot be entirely > performed by any existing institution. This includes: highlighting > emerging issues, assessing the embodiment of WSIS principles, and > strengthening the participation of stakeholders in Internet > governance mechanisms. Furthermore, the IGF was defined as > “multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent” body; > it has been structured through a Secretariat, a multi-stakeholder > advisory group (MAG), and a special advisory group to the MAG’s > chair; and for 3 years, it has been operating as an open discursive > space, prepared through open consultation sessions. Submissions are > invited to explore whether the IGF has fulfilled its mandate at this > step, which difficulties can be identified and how they could be > solved. Has the IGF structure, management and advisory mechanisms > proven to be adequate and compliant with the WSIS Tunis Agenda > requirements? What strengths could be reinforced and weaknesses > overcome? > > 5. Law and Jurisdictions in Internet Governance > The Internet must now be considered a major factor when elaborating > regulatory principles to deal with the circulation of content and > data and with the protection of the general communications > infrastructure. This is not an easy task because of its implications > on the respect for universal human rights, fundamental freedoms and > the rule of law, where States differ widely on their implementation > of these international standards, even among coherent regional > entities. The task becomes even more complex due to conflicts of > competences among overlapping jurisdictions. We seek papers that > identify and explore conflicts among national laws and attempts to > harmonize them. We also seek papers that explore the relevance to the > global Internet of public and private international law currently in > force or being considered in ongoing international negotiations. > Submissions analyzing the role and positions of various players in > these processes are also encouraged. > > 6. Copyright Protection, Internet Service Providers and Technical > Mechanisms of Control > We encourage papers that examine attempts to impose copyright > protection on the Internet through the intermediary of Internet > service providers. This theme bridges the topics of network > neutrality and intellectual property, inspired by recent incidents, > such as a Belgian ISP’s order by a court to use deep packet > inspection to catch copyright infringement in transit, and Comcast's > notorious interference with BitTorrent, which also was probably > stimulated in part by copyright protection concerns. Papers can > explore the feasibility and “state of the art” of packet inspection > and other relevant techniques, analyze copyright industry and ISP > industry interactions from a political economy standpoint, or examine > appropriate policy responses to new and powerful packet inspection > techniques. > > 7. Internationalized Domain Names: Expanding Access or Tower of Babel? > We encourage papers on the economic, cultural and compatibility > issues raised by the migration to a new standard for Internet domain > names that allows them to reflect non-Roman scripts such as Chinese > or Cyrillic. Internationalized domain names (IDNs) have a double- > edged effect: they widen access for non-English or ASCII readers by > making domain names easier to use, but they also introduce > compatibility problems among people communicating across language > boundaries, as one party may not know how to read or input the > address of the other party. There are also interesting questions of > competition policy, as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names > and Numbers (ICANN) must decide whether to give new generic top level > domains (TLDs) in IDN scripts to incumbents operating ASCII TLDs with > similar meanings, or to new competitors. Issues of consumer confusion > and cross-linguistic disputes can also arise. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: GigaNetSymp-CFP2008.pdf > GigaNetSymp-CFP2008.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Jun 1 09:17:32 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:47:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net> <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4842A16C.2010103@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Jun 1 09:39:41 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:09:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net> <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <4842A69D.5040809@itforchange.net> Dear Vittorio, The issue you raise has been discussed quite a bit on the list .... a. The term 'technical community' is being used to cover two different identities - the IABSs (Internet Administration Bodies such as ICANN), and individuals with technical expertise. Individuals with technical expertise will be part of all the stakeholder groups - for e.g. the nomcom has endorsed candidature of Sheeran Amod who may be considered a 'technical person'. Carlos, McTim, Avri, Izumi .... are other people who come into mind who would consider themselves 'technical' and could be clearly considered part of CS. Whereas people representing ICANN or any other IAB can not be considered part of CS. e.g. CEO of ICANN or a RIR. It should be noted that IAB representatives may not always be 'technical' as understood in this discussion - the current chair of ICANN for e.g. is an IP lawyer, a profile quite different from that of Vint Cerf... Of course I clearly support that ICANN and other IABs should be represented in the MAG (we all know that without these bodies, MAG will have no meaning), but as the IGC concluded 'not at the cost of civil society'. Thus there is no way IGC can endorse for CS quota, IAB representatives. regards, Guru ps - while it is accepted that these two identities may have overlaps as well, for the purpose of issues such as MAG membership, the distinction is critical Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Parminder ha scritto: >> Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and >> language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for >> holding any >> kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of >> defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS >> because of >> structural properties associated with an organization and the >> situation of >> specific individuals vis a vis that organization. > > There is one point that I don't understand in this discussion. > > If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society > and cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the > need for a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations > so that they can be represented through this other mechanism. If, on > the other hand, we claim that there can be only three stakeholder > groups and not a fourth one for the "technical community", then the > technical community must be an equal member of the civil society group > of stakeholders. > > I don't understand whether this is being taken into account - ie, > those who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the > technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into > the civil society group? And do those who oppose that think that there > should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 1 12:05:37 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:35:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <4842A16C.2010103@itforchange.net> References: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net> <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net> <4842A16C.2010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <008801c8c401$569584f0$03c08ed0$@net> In other words, Guru, a unilateral decision is made as to just who is CS and who is not (and as I have pointed out, opinion differs). So far your arguments have been very specious, consisting of - . Arbitrarily claiming that a particular class of organizations are not CS . Citing individual people as counter examples As far as I can see, McTim made a very inspired guess when he speculated as to why the RIRs and others identified themselves as PS rather than CS - he pointed out the apparent hostility of various CS groups, coupled with a broadly stated desire to gain oversight and control (there's no such thing as "soft oversight" - and certainly not in the direction this is heading), ignoring all the existing, and open processes in these organizations. You have, as in the statement above, always made your political sympathies and position clear (and parminder or milton's position is no more or no less political than yours! This is to respond to your 'I don't see the caucus as "political" at all. It SHOULD NOT be IMO'). Come on, Guru . if Parminder and Milton play politics (as you seem to suggest, and I completely agree), any counter to such a political argument must necessarily be couched in political terms. If the argument is not outright dismissed as inappropriate for this forum and set to lead it in a completely wrong direction. suresh From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:48 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest McTim, It is incorrect rather inaccurate for you to state that "This is your position, (and Guru's)." Ian who as the chair of nomcom shared the report with IGC, has already explained in detail the logic of that para in the nomcom report in a mail of his. The relevant part of the report states "Again there was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom - but there were seen to be potential conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined with the precedent already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full time employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at our decision". Adam has come on the list to support this statement in the report, that this is in keeping with the IGC position. Milton and Parminder have also given explanations for this position. I have done the same earlier, as to why the CEO of ICANN or the CEO of a RIR cannot be endorsed by IGC to MAG as a CS representative. We need to consider the interests/positions/perspectives the person will represent and it is not right that 'Bertrand as a signatory to the IGC charter' can be considered as a IGC nominee to MAG, when he represents French Govt at GAC. Even if diverse, CS does stand for a set of positions that basically seek to extract accountability from governance institutions. Hence it is wrong to completely ignore the conflict of interest possibilities for a full time employee or a CEO of a IG organization and consider him/her for CS candidature. (As I have mentioned earlier, I am all for moving towards a world where all those who are governed have also a good role and part in governance itself, however it is not reality today and pretending otherwise will continue imo to perpetuate the current distortions in IG). In terms of identifying which institutions would be covered under this conflict of interest and what kinds of employment (full time / CEO/ consultants/ part time etc) could need discussion. Yet the basic principle of 'conflict of interest' needs to be accepted, this is the very premise on which multi-stakeholder principle is based. And we need to have this clarity on who will represent CS in MAG as well, which was partly made clear in the IGC submission to Feb 2008 consultations. The signing of the charter by a person cannot be a sole consideration either way - we consciously tried to get nominations of people from CS outside the IGC (this was also discussed quite a bit on the list), also membership on the list is not a sufficient criterion for nomination. The nature of an organization being non-profit cannot be in itself a sufficient consideration for ICANN to be CS (by this token all Govts would be CS!). When even ICANN and RIRs identified themselves as PS, it is quite odd that you keep insisting that they are CS - being more loyal than the King :-) And you wonder why these IG orgs identified with PS in WSIS? Maybe it's because they'd rather have a nice hug rather than a kick in the ass. I know which I prefer! You have, as in the statement above, always made your political sympathies and position clear (and parminder or milton's position is no more or no less political than yours! This is to respond to your 'I don't see the caucus as "political" at all. It SHOULD NOT be IMO'). Guru -------------- 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 Sun Jun 1 12:09:43 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:09:43 -0400 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do Message-ID: Ken, The point is the opposite: The 'UN' should NOT be more involved in supporting the community's virtual organization. The UN should just get out of the way. There appear to be volunteers offering to take on some of the load, whether organized as working group or dynamic coalition. With all due respect to (SU ABD) Chengetai, reality is the small IGF secretariat staff doesn't have time to deal with the http://www.intgovforum.org/ website, much less remote participation. Last time I looked the site was still the bare bones pre-web 1.0 embarrassment slapped together a while back, I'm sure with no budget. Any number of IGC members could do way better in their spare time. (Not me). Or some pro web developers could donate service for the global public good...which I'm fine with as long as that is done in the context of an IGF working group or dynamic coalition or whatever. In sum, point is multi-stakeholders, 2/3rds of whom - private sector and civil society - typically are way better at organizing remote participation than national governments or international intergovernmental organizations, should be able to organize remote participation for IGF III, in a ,utlistakkeholder fashion. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> klohento at panos-ao.org 05/31/08 5:13 AM >>> Hi McTim McTim a écrit : > Well, from my experience the IGF webcast/chat functions have been > unusable. You're right, the systems don't always/most of the time work well. (just for info, maybe it was already mentioned : for MAG meetings, we often use Marratech http://www.marratech.co.uk/ and it works quite well often - but I think it's not adequate for public IGF meetings, notably because it requires more technical arrangements from the user side). > Now I recognise that I am not like "most people" of course, you're not :-) > 2) I CAN and DO participate remotely in the "existing Internet > administration bodies" events on this same link. This is not > surprising given the amount of experience (RIPE meetings webcast for > ~5 years, others slightly less) AND the type of NOC they can run on > site. > It seems to me a crucial issue is that the UN engaged itself more decisively in IGF and provide more resources for it's whole management, notably to better remote participation. Best KL ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 1 12:10:06 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:40:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <4842A69D.5040809@itforchange.net> References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net> <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <4842A69D.5040809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <009001c8c401$f6db07a0$e49116e0$@net> So far, one point has been made, again and again, by McTim and I, among others. You are nominating persons, not organizations You have no right to bar specific organization's employees if they have CS cred The charter's wording doesn't support it either Citing specific counter examples (Peter Dengate Thrush instead of Vint Cerf) isn't a valid or logical counter argument either. No, don't trot out the "at the expense of CS" line again, read the entire charter and put that quote in its appropriate context, then define CS properly, before you next make that argument. > -----Original Message----- > From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 7:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Parminder; 'McTim' > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > Whereas people representing ICANN or any other IAB can not be > considered > part of CS. e.g. CEO of ICANN or a RIR. It should be noted that IAB > representatives may not always be 'technical' as understood in this > discussion - the current chair of ICANN for e.g. is an IP lawyer, a > profile quite different from that of Vint Cerf... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 1 13:16:50 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 20:16:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <4842A16C.2010103@itforchange.net> References: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net> <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net> <4842A16C.2010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In addition to what SR has said in his reply, I am rebutting your points one by one in hopes you read them. This does not seem to have been the case in the past, as you keep coming back with the same arguments and myths that have been debunked already. On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Guru wrote: > McTim, > > It is incorrect rather inaccurate for you to state that > > "This is your position, (and Guru's)." Why? is it not your position that "if a person is a fulltime employee of IG organization then though they may have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS credentials." I seem to recall you making this absurd argument before. Do you consider NIXI or INRegistry to be gov't PS or CS? I see them as CS, as does the LSE definition; http://www.registry.in/about_inregistry/ "The INRegistry has been created by NIXI, the National Internet eXchange of India. NIXI is a Not-for-Profit Company under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with the objective of facilitating improved Internet services in the country." Sounds like a CS objective to me. > > Ian who as the chair of nomcom shared the report with IGC, has already > explained in detail the logic of that para in the nomcom report in a mail of > his. This doesn't mean that the NomCom had the authority to take this action. If I shoot you in the head, do I get off scot-free to do it again if I explain the logic behind my action? I think not. > > The relevant part of the report states > "Again there was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom – but there > were seen to be potential > conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined with the > precedent > already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full > time > employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at our > decision". Yes, it does, and the two key bits for me are ; 1) there was no consensus, but a decision was reached anyway. I'm curious, why was this? 2) The NomCom invented a precedent that was 180 degrees away from reality of the actual precedent. Did you not realise that the precedent existed, or did you just ignore it? > > Adam has come on the list to support this statement in the report, that this > is in keeping with the IGC position. > So? Adam has no more of a voice than I, according to the charter. > Milton and Parminder have also given explanations for this position. I have > done the same earlier, as to why the CEO of ICANN or the CEO of a RIR cannot > be endorsed by IGC to MAG as a CS representative. Then why on earth did we do it two years ago? How is it that you are ignoring this simple fact? IIRC, Avri, Jeannette SR, me, George, VB and Robert have all expressed the notion that such a priori exclusion is not a good idea. However, we operate on a consensus basis, not on majority rule, something that the NomCom seems to have overlooked. We need to consider the > interests/positions/perspectives the person will represent and it is not > right that 'Bertrand as a signatory to the IGC charter' can be considered as > a IGC nominee to MAG, when he represents French Govt at GAC. Show me where in the charter it says this! > > Even if diverse, CS does stand for a set of positions that basically seek to > extract accountability from governance institutions. Hence it is wrong to > completely ignore the conflict of interest possibilities for a full time > employee or a CEO of a IG organization and consider him/her for CS > candidature. This doesn't follow. What if that CEO were running an org that also stood "for a set of positions that basically seek to extract accountability from governance institutions" ?? (As I have mentioned earlier, I am all for moving towards a > world where all those who are governed have also a good role and part in > governance itself, however it is not reality today IT IS in the example used frequently in this thread. The RIRs are governed by their members, and policies are set by the RIR community. This is the reality of IG that I do on a daily basis. I invite you to join this reality. Please. Your eyes will be opened to the notion that the governed can also govern! and pretending otherwise > will continue imo to perpetuate the current distortions in IG). In terms of > identifying which institutions would be covered under this conflict of > interest and what kinds of employment (full time / CEO/ consultants/ part > time etc) could need discussion. Ok, discuss, whose on your "hit list"? >Yet the basic principle of 'conflict of > interest' needs to be accepted, I will accept it if we acknowledge that full time employees of CS orgs have the exact same "potential conflicts". As one of your FTEs, doesn't Parminder have to represent your organisations position? If he doesn't then why would, say, an RIR staff member be held to a different standard? If he does, then he has the exact same potential conflict that the Nomcom cited in their reasoning. this is the very premise on which > multi-stakeholder principle is based. And we need to have this clarity on > who will represent CS in MAG as well, which was partly made clear in the IGC > submission to Feb 2008 consultations. Then we need to rewrite the charter to exclude other stakeholders. A decision this momentous SHOULD NOT be taken by a NomCom alone. Our statement of Feb was hotly debated IIRC. The NomCom should have realised that this was an issue they had no right to decide upon without consultation from the full caucus! > > The signing of the charter by a person cannot be a sole consideration either > way - we consciously tried to get nominations of people from CS outside the > IGC (this was also discussed quite a bit on the list), also membership on > the list is not a sufficient criterion for nomination. The nature of an > organization being non-profit cannot be in itself a sufficient consideration > for ICANN to be CS (by this token all Govts would be CS!). See my earlier rebuttals to Parminder, they are still valid, and I can't be arsed to type them again. When even ICANN > and RIRs identified themselves as PS, it is quite odd that you keep > insisting that they are CS - being more loyal than the King :-) I call em like I see em, and I see these orgs (and have participated in their processes) doing part of what is now called IG for many years before the term IG was invented. > > And you wonder why these IG orgs identified with PS in WSIS? Maybe > it's because they'd rather have a nice hug rather than a kick in the > ass. I know which I prefer! > > You have, as in the statement above, always made your political sympathies > and position clear They are positions based on experience, on what I have seen and done in the numbering community, not based on "politics". Can you show me where in the charter the word "political" appears? I can't find 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 1 14:05:15 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:05:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <4842A69D.5040809@itforchange.net> References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net> <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <4842A69D.5040809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Vittorio, > > The issue you raise has been discussed quite a bit on the list .... > > a. The term 'technical community' is being used to cover two different > identities - the IABSs (Internet Administration Bodies such as ICANN), and > individuals with technical expertise. > This has no bearing on the issue at hand. > Individuals with technical expertise will be part of all the stakeholder > groups - for e.g. the nomcom has endorsed candidature of Sheeran Amod who > may be considered a 'technical person'. Carlos, McTim, Avri, Izumi .... are > other people who come into mind who would consider themselves 'technical' > and could be clearly considered part of CS. So the day before I started working at an RIR I was CS, but the next day I was not, then magically became CS again the day I left their employment (all the while espousing the exact same views)? > > Whereas people representing ICANN or any other IAB can not be considered > part of CS. They can, just not in your narrow worldview. e.g. CEO of ICANN or a RIR. It should be noted that IAB > representatives may not always be 'technical' as understood in this > discussion - the current chair of ICANN for e.g. is an IP lawyer, a profile > quite different from that of Vint Cerf... > > Of course I clearly support that ICANN and other IABs should be represented > in the MAG (we all know that without these bodies, MAG will have no > meaning), but as the IGC concluded 'not at the cost of civil society'. Thus > there is no way IGC can endorse for CS quota, IAB representatives. But we have done in the past, and as Raul points out above "and now I have received an important support form civil society organizations from LAC region to continue serving in the MAG" So are there alternate criteria for who CS is in the LAC region? I note that you haven't answered VB in your post. His query was simple: "those who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into the civil society group?" And do those who oppose that think that there should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies?" My answer is that I do feel they are CS, but have no objection to an official 4th SH grouping, as this gives CS double the representation. I'll let Guru answer the second part of the question for himself (or for his organisation), but logically, if they are not allowed in to the CS room, then they should have their own. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Jun 1 16:37:24 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:37:24 -0400 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB749D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Ken, > > The point is the opposite: > > The 'UN' should NOT be more involved in supporting the community's virtual > organization. > Right! The whole world is atwitter with the peer production phenomenon, (here's one of the best and most recent entries: http://isbn.nu/978-1594201530 ) and we know that it bloody well works! The UN needs to let go enough to allow the repressed energy of the IGF community to take up the slack. It simply needs to establish a neutral framework for channeling that energy into performance of various secretariat functions. The IGF will become much more successful if it does so, and the UN will end up looking better. IGP hinted at this with the "Distributed Secretariat" paper years ago ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 1 16:49:12 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:49:12 +0200 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB749D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB749D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3DA1E82C-27A5-43E6-8AA8-358CA38E79F5@psg.com> hi, I am not sure I understand the issue. The IGF secretariat makes information available on its web site. In understand that some people are comfortable with that web site and some people are not. I don't remember anyone ever telling anyone that they could not startup a user participation site of their own. a. On 1 Jun 2008, at 22:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] >> >> Ken, >> >> The point is the opposite: >> >> The 'UN' should NOT be more involved in supporting the community's > virtual >> organization. >> > > Right! > The whole world is atwitter with the peer production phenomenon, > (here's > one of the best and most recent entries: http://isbn.nu/ > 978-1594201530 ) > and we know that it bloody well works! > > The UN needs to let go enough to allow the repressed energy of the IGF > community to take up the slack. It simply needs to establish a neutral > framework for channeling that energy into performance of various > secretariat functions. The IGF will become much more successful if it > does so, and the UN will end up looking better. > > IGP hinted at this with the "Distributed Secretariat" paper years ago > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 2 06:52:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:52:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. Thanks for reasserting. But that's not the operating part of what I said, which, to quote again, was... "This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the proposer of this criterion really means by it." Did you read the part on requirement of some 'clear explanation' for it to be a meaningful criterion? So, if you prefer that no 'structural distinction' be used to have some level of 'working clarity' for whom we include as CS, and you prefer the qualification of 'CS cred', I am obviously curious to know what you consider as 'CS creds'... I repeat this point because almost all others who have had some reservation on making any structural distinction at all in identifying CS, and CS persons, that is suggested in IGC's WSIS history, in its charter, in majority of discussions on the list, in our Feb statement, and in nomcom's decision, have now spoken of some kind of criterion of 'CS credentials' or 'CS viewpoints' I think they owe it to this discussion to clarify what they mean by this criterion, what could be 'CS credentials' and 'CS viewpoints', and how they can be applied in taking orgs and persons to be civil society or not. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:10 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio > Bertola' > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]: > > > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > >> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of > interest > > > >The part of nomcom statement > >"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another > matter > >that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time employees > of > > That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its mandate, > and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of > candidates. > > It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, there > are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align much > better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much > closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. Shutting > them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an open > mind is definitely not appropriate. > > >suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain > >structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. > > Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral > decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points out? > > suresh > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 07:06:23 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:06:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> Message-ID: My apologies, Suresh, but we aaaaare getting a bit tired of 'hearing' your voice! (BTW, people do 'talk' off list and its is a 'considerable' consensus) Could we hear someone else for a change?????? PLEASE!!! My very best regards, Rui On 01/06/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]: > > > > > > > > 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > > > > > This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > > > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > > > > > > 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of interest > > > > > > > The part of nomcom statement "Candidates employed by Internet Governance > Organisations - Another matter > > that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time employees > of > > > > That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its mandate, > and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of > candidates. > > It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, there > are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align much > better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much > closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. Shutting > them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an open > mind is definitely not appropriate. > > > > suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain > > structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. > > > > Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral > decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points out? > > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 07:15:19 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:45:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> No. You are still not seeing the point. Deliberately, I expect. Try to read others emails instead of writing 20 page emails of your own, sometime? Suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:22 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > > > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and > 'the' > > > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > Thanks for reasserting. But that's not the operating part of what I > said, > which, to quote again, was... > > "This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the > proposer > of this criterion really means by it." > > Did you read the part on requirement of some 'clear explanation' for it > to > be a meaningful criterion? > > So, if you prefer that no 'structural distinction' be used to have some > level of 'working clarity' for whom we include as CS, and you prefer > the > qualification of 'CS cred', I am obviously curious to know what you > consider > as 'CS creds'... > > > I repeat this point because almost all others who have had some > reservation > on making any structural distinction at all in identifying CS, and CS > persons, that is suggested in IGC's WSIS history, in its charter, in > majority of discussions on the list, in our Feb statement, and in > nomcom's > decision, have now spoken of some kind of criterion of 'CS credentials' > or > 'CS viewpoints' > > I think they owe it to this discussion to clarify what they mean by > this > criterion, what could be 'CS credentials' and 'CS viewpoints', and how > they > can be applied in taking orgs and persons to be civil society or not. > Thanks. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:10 AM > > To: Parminder > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio > > Bertola' > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > > > Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]: > > > > > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and > 'the' > > > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > > > >> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of > > interest > > > > > >The part of nomcom statement > > >"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another > > matter > > >that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time > employees > > of > > > > That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its > mandate, > > and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of > > candidates. > > > > It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, > there > > are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align > much > > better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much > > closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. > Shutting > > them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an > open > > mind is definitely not appropriate. > > > > >suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain > > >structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. > > > > Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral > > decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points > out? > > > > suresh > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 2 07:16:47 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> Message-ID: <01ab01c8c4a2$275f6b50$761e41f0$@net> I will leave McTim to make further points. Saves me time countering nonsense, naïvete and petty politics, which seem to characterize the so-called "civil society position" on this list. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > My apologies, Suresh, but we aaaaare getting a bit tired of 'hearing' > your voice! (BTW, people do 'talk' off list and its is a > 'considerable' consensus) Could we hear someone else for a > change?????? PLEASE!!! > > My very best regards, > > Rui ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 08:19:10 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:19:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> Message-ID: Dear Suresh 20 pages??? writing 20 pages??? you must be judging others by your own verbal incontinence. Unless necessary - eg, for academic purposes - I can say anything I need to say in less than 50 words. Perhaps you are mistaking/ mistook me for one of your own. It would appear that it is you who has lost all semblance of what is withing propriety to keep on spewing forth all kinds of ......... with little consideration for the few other thousand on this forum. Please take it from me: your 'voice' is getting tiring .... On secnd thounghts, PLEASE, DON'T take it from me; ask YOUR OWN FRIENDS!!!! Best regards, Rui On 02/06/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > No. You are still not seeing the point. Deliberately, I expect. > > Try to read others emails instead of writing 20 page emails of your own, > sometime? > > > Suresh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > > > > > > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > > > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and > > 'the' > > > > > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > > > Thanks for reasserting. But that's not the operating part of what I > > said, > > which, to quote again, was... > > > > "This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > > central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the > > proposer > > of this criterion really means by it." > > > > Did you read the part on requirement of some 'clear explanation' for it > > to > > be a meaningful criterion? > > > > So, if you prefer that no 'structural distinction' be used to have some > > level of 'working clarity' for whom we include as CS, and you prefer > > the > > qualification of 'CS cred', I am obviously curious to know what you > > consider > > as 'CS creds'... > > > > > > I repeat this point because almost all others who have had some > > reservation > > on making any structural distinction at all in identifying CS, and CS > > persons, that is suggested in IGC's WSIS history, in its charter, in > > majority of discussions on the list, in our Feb statement, and in > > nomcom's > > decision, have now spoken of some kind of criterion of 'CS credentials' > > or > > 'CS viewpoints' > > > > I think they owe it to this discussion to clarify what they mean by > > this > > criterion, what could be 'CS credentials' and 'CS viewpoints', and how > > they > > can be applied in taking orgs and persons to be civil society or not. > > Thanks. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:10 AM > > > To: Parminder > > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio > > > Bertola' > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > > > > > Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]: > > > > > > > >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred > > > > > > > >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and > > 'the' > > > > > > This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > > > > > >> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of > > > interest > > > > > > > >The part of nomcom statement > > > >"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another > > > matter > > > >that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time > > employees > > > of > > > > > > That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its > > mandate, > > > and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of > > > candidates. > > > > > > It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, > > there > > > are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align > > much > > > better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much > > > closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. > > Shutting > > > them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an > > open > > > mind is definitely not appropriate. > > > > > > >suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain > > > >structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. > > > > > > Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral > > > decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points > > out? > > > > > > suresh > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 08:42:58 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:42:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> Message-ID: <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> Rui Correia [02/06/08 14:19 +0200]: >20 pages??? writing 20 pages??? you must be judging others by your own >verbal incontinence. Unless necessary - eg, for academic purposes - I >can say anything I need to say in less than 50 words. I believe my last email was addressed to Parminder, not you. I've already said what I need to say. If a few people on the list "fail" to understand them and keep making the same wrong arguments, I have, perforce, to repeat myself. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 09:18:54 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:18:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <4843d0ec.2a528c0a.48a5.0449SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <4843d0ec.2a528c0a.48a5.0449SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred >> > >> >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' >> >> This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes. > > Thanks for reasserting. But that's not the operating part of what I said, > which, to quote again, was... > > "This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the' > central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the proposer > of this criterion really means by it." Well, since we are nominating folk outside the IGC to the MAG, don't they need some kind of CS "cred"" or background or history in order for the NomCom to put their names forward? Take for example, the 2 RIR leaders (both on this list) who have been nominated by CS in the last few years. IIRC, PW worked with APC as a Board member as well as a participant in SANOG, WSIS and of course, to cement his CS credentials, he is DG of APNIC and currently chairs the Exec Committee of the NRO. Raul, of course as the CEO of LACNIC, has similar CS credentials (otherwise, why would the LAC CS folk nominate him)? > > Did you read the part on requirement of some 'clear explanation' for it to > be a meaningful criterion? > One hopes the above makes it clear. In any case, as SR suggests, this is a distraction from the main issue. > So, if you prefer that no 'structural distinction' be used to have some > level of 'working clarity' for whom we include as CS, and you prefer the > qualification of 'CS cred', I am obviously curious to know what you consider > as 'CS creds'... I certainly prefer to follow the charter, which says that we all have equal rights and duties. It follows that any member has the right to be nominated tot he MAG (unless they are on appeals team or NomCom). Now, the NomCom has changed this, and excluded a class of folk. This is not kosher unless we change the charter. > > > I repeat this point because almost all others who have had some reservation > on making any structural distinction at all in identifying CS, and CS > persons, that is suggested in IGC's WSIS history, in its charter, in > majority of discussions on the list, in our Feb statement, and in nomcom's > decision, have now spoken of some kind of criterion of 'CS credentials' or > 'CS viewpoints' > Where in the charter does it suggest a "structural distinction"? In the Feb statement, I read it as saying "we want them and us" as a middle ground because the folk on this list who can't allow a 4th SH group ALSO can't seem to accept folk who work for, say, non-profits registries and research bodies as CS. > I think they owe it to this discussion to clarify what they mean by this > criterion, what could be 'CS credentials' and 'CS viewpoints', and how they > can be applied in taking orgs and persons to be civil society or not. What is owed to this discussion is IMO, less politics and more "generosity of spirit" to quote Nitin Desai. To exclude an undefined class of CS organisations because they have the very same "potential conflict of interest" that most on this list have, is most ungenerous. Oh, and Rui, you replied to Parminder when you addressed SR, I never tire of his posts, as they are usually quite reasonable and have content that is on point. I'm afraid I can't say the same about yours today. Can you speak to the point about excluding folks a priori please? I'd like to hear your opinion. What if we excluded journalists because they are supposed to be objective (in the sense of not espousing a position on topics they write about)? Would you be happy with that? -- 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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Jun 2 09:19:56 2008 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:19:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> Message-ID: Having followed this thread I have a couple of comments: 1. I'm curious if an analysis has been done on the comments posted on this thread to date - specifically the gender, linguistic diversity and regional breakdown of who is posting, and the positions being put forward. though a select few seem to be posting far too often, others - seem to quiet. As this seems an important topic, let's make sure that all members of this list - be encouraged, and given the chance to comment. 2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC discussions. During phase II of WSIS as well as post-wsis, i have had the chance to better appreciate the role and contribution played by Regional Internet Registries (RIR's) in the IG discussions. Two particularly, i followed closely - that being LACNIC & ARIN. LACNIC's role in engaging a wide set of stakeholders in the latin american & Carribean region is to be commended. They are a very active stakeholder in the LAC region, and contribute to the regional (mostly spanish & portuguese) IG list. From what colleagues in the region tell me - they are quite respected and seen as a good example of facilitator, one that brings different stakeholders together. Having an actor such is this active and involved in the IGC, in my opinion - is much needed. In my view, the decision weither or not it should have full representation on this list (and structures it creates) should be determined not by those unfamiliar with its work - but instead from CS from the LAC region. When consulting views from the LAC region - one will find much support, and this should be taken into consideration by those who seem to post ad-nausem about this topic. In terms of comments about ARIN , I have the upmost respect for them - Ray and others - as well. The comments I mention about LACNIC, equally apply. But, I will add some additional comments - that being commending ARIN for their outreach and engagement at the recent NTEN conference in New Orleans. Sharing information about IG and engaging non-profits, and the public at large is a role - all of us should be be doing - but, few are. ARIN's efforts in this regard is to be commended. As someone from the NA region - who knows their their consultation and PDP are truly bottom up - would recommend their full member of this caucus. Thus - of the two RIR's that I know - seem to have the processes and track record of effectively engaging the public and CS . Simply ignoring the fact, is not recognizing the hundreds of voices who speak at their public meetings. RIR's in my view - bring a value, experience and knowledge of their regions to the IG discussion table. Their consultation processes are open, and in many ways represent far more "CS" then many on list. To simple ignore their role or importance - is just wrong. It my opinion, to summarily dismiss their role, importance and exclude them as a full member of this caucus - would be a strategic mistake. regards Robert On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Rui Correia [02/06/08 14:19 +0200]: > >> 20 pages??? writing 20 pages??? you must be judging others by your own >> verbal incontinence. Unless necessary - eg, for academic purposes - I >> can say anything I need to say in less than 50 words. >> > > I believe my last email was addressed to Parminder, not you. > > I've already said what I need to say. If a few people on the list "fail" to > understand them and keep making the same wrong arguments, I have, perforce, > to repeat myself. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 09:30:29 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:00:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <4843d0ec.2a528c0a.48a5.0449SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <01d901c8c4b4$d5420450$7fc60cf0$@net> > Take for example, the 2 RIR leaders (both on this list) who have been > nominated by CS in the last few years. IIRC, PW worked with APC as a > Board member as well as a participant in SANOG, WSIS and of course, to > cement his CS credentials, he is DG of APNIC and currently chairs the > Exec Committee of the NRO. Raul, of course as the CEO of LACNIC, has As for APNIC - I know Paul Wilson for the last 5 years and I have first hand experience of the excellent work APNIC does in capacity building and in facilitating NGOs (including APDIP) in the region Among the various APNIC staffers, for example, Save Vocea, who used to work for APNIC and now works for ICANN did quite a lot of good work in the pacific islands, and continues to do so. I will agree with McTim there, the RIRs, and the people who work for them, have actually done far more to further the aims of civil society than most others on the list. I must thank Robert for making the points he did in his email. 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 09:45:54 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:45:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <4843d0ec.2a528c0a.48a5.0449SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear McTim Please check the sequence of postings: I never replied to Parminder as you imply, whose posting no doubt are - as you say - "usually quite reasonable and have content to the point" I was replying to Suresh's postings - more to the point, that his appear to make up about half of the list 's opinion ..... and I doubt that he make up anywhere but the tiniest percentile of civil society, yet he appears to feel entitle to comment on everything on this list while far more qualified people prefer to not participate as they do not feel like being party to this interminable not-going-anywhere monologue. So, please, now, once clear as to whom I was referring to, kindly do confirm whether you would like me to "speak to the point about excluding people a priori". Again, I am afraid you might not be paying much atention to the sequence of postings and are confusing me with someone else. That not being the case, I am quite willing to respond to ANYTHING THAT I HAVE OR MIGHT HAVE SAID. best regards, Rui On 02/06/2008, McTim wrote: Oh, and Rui, you replied to Parminder when you addressed SR, I never > tire of his posts, as they are usually quite reasonable and have > content that is on point. I'm afraid I can't say the same about yours > today. Can you speak to the point about excluding folks a priori > please? I'd like to hear your opinion. What if we excluded > journalists because they are supposed to be objective (in the sense of > not espousing a position on topics they write about)? Would you be > happy with that? > > > -- > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 10:49:02 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:49:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <4843d0ec.2a528c0a.48a5.0449SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Rui, (yes, I am addressing you) ;-) On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Rui Correia wrote: > Dear McTim > > Please check the sequence of postings: Now I see that you replied to SR's post of 21 hours ago. It just appeared to me that you replied to a post of Parmnder's from 3 hours ago. Deepest apologies for any confusion. I never replied to Parminder as > you imply, whose posting no doubt are - as you say - "usually quite > reasonable and have content to the point" I was replying to Suresh's > postings - more to the point, that his appear to make up about half of > the list 's opinion ..... and I doubt that he make up anywhere but the > tiniest percentile of civil society, yet he appears to feel entitle to > comment on everything on this list while far more qualified people I can think of few more qualified to comment on IG thna one who has been doing it for many years longer than the term existed. > prefer to not participate as they do not feel like being party to this > interminable not-going-anywhere monologue. On the contrary, well "qualified" folk have weighed in the last few days, and we now have, seemingly more folk who think exclusion is not such a good idea than have expressed the notion that such exclusion is a good idea. I'd say that is progress towards a solution. > > So, please, now, once clear as to whom I was referring to, kindly do > confirm whether you would like me to "speak to the point about > excluding people a priori". Confirmed. Please share your opinion on this vital topic, including your view on the hypothetical case where journalists would be excluded, and how we could make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen going forward. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jun 2 10:51:47 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:51:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Resolution References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DF9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI 2008 CSTD Resolution on WSIS & IGF Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Resolution.2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 212680 bytes Desc: Resolution.2008.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT2567303.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT01709.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From voxinternet at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 11:02:45 2008 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:02:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Lettre_d'information_Vox_Internet_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?n=B04?= Message-ID: Bonjour, Voici la lettre d'information n°4 du programme Vox Internet II. *ACTUALITE DU PROGRAMME* *• Journée d'étude Vox Internet II du 25 juin 2008"Revisiting Internet Governance : Ethics and Politics in human-objects networks" *Programme et inscription Program and registration *• Imaginaires des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication *Synthèse de la journée d'étude Vox Internet II du 31 mars 2008 Lire l'article *• Les noms de domaine, un objet-clé de la gouvernance internet? *Synthèse de la journée d'étude Vox Internet II du 14 février 2008 Lire l'article * ARTICLES SCIENTIFIQUES * *• Gouvernance de l'internet et société civile : les limites du multistakeholderism *Communication de Françoise Massit-Folléa au colloque de la Société Québécoise de Science Politique le 9 mai 2008 Lire l'article ***• A democratic Internet? * Communication d'Andrew Feenberg au séminaire Vox Internet II du 25 janvier 2008Lire l'article * ANALYSES ET COMPTE-RENDUS * *• Questions de confiance* Compte-rendu du colloque "Comment mettre l'innovation en démocratie? Pratiques et enjeux de concertation" Organisé par l'association Vivagora le 18 mars 2008 au Conseil Régional d'Ile-de-France Lire l'article * * *SUIVI DU SMSI* *• Figures du multistakeholderism* Publication d'une étude sur "la participation de toutes les parties prenantes concernées par les activités de l'UIT en relation avec le SMSI" Lire l'annonce * * *• Programme de la session de suivi des décisions du SMSI* Organisée par l'UIT Lire l'annonce *• Publication du calendrier préparatoire du troisième Forum sur la Gouvernance d'Internet* Lire l'annonce *• Publication du rapport du Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) * Lire l'annonce * * *ACTUALITE EDITORIALE **•"Les libertés numériques ; notre liberté est-elle menacée par l'internet ?"* Par Paul Mathias Lire l'annonce *• "Simondon ou l'Encyclopédisme génétique" *Par Jean-Hugues Barthélémy Lire l'annonce *• "Internet Governance and the Information Society : Global Perspectives and European Dimensions"* Par Wolfgang Benedek, Veronika Bauer, Matthias C. Kettemann Lire l'annonce *•* *"Ecrire, calculer, classer : comment une révolution de papier a transformé les sociétés contemporaines (1800-1940)"* Par Delphine Gardey Lire l'annonce *• Lancement de la revue TIC&Société * Lire l'annonce *ANNONCES DE COLLOQUES ET CONFERENCES **•"Des subjectivités numériques"* Séminaire 2008 de Paul Mathias au Collège international de philosophie Lire l'annonce * **•*"*Visions of the Future : Uncertainty and Credibility in the World of High-Tech and Venture Capital", conférence de Steven Shapin * Le 3 juin 2008 à l'Ecole des Mines de Paris Lire l'annonce *• *"*Plus longue la vie", Université de Printemps de la FING * Les 5 et 6 juin 2008 à Aix-en-Provence Lire l'annonce *• XVIe Congrès de la Société Française des Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication *Du 11 au 13 juin 2008, Compiègne Lire l'annonce * **•"Global Internet Governance : Implications for the Future of the Internet Economy"* Conférence organisée par GigaNet à la réunion ministérielle OCDE de Séoul le 16 juin 2008 Lire l'annonce * •"The economics of Information and Communication Technologies"* Conference organisée par Telecom ParisTech les 19 et 20 juin 2008 Lire l'annonce *• "Public Domain in the Digital Age"* Conférence internationale organisée par le programme COMMUNIA à Louvain-La Neuve, Belgique, les 30 juin et 1er juillet 2008 Lire l'annonce * •"Pour une croissance intensive en connaissance. Stratégies européennes dans l'économie mondiale"* Conférence organisée par la Toulouse School of Economics, du 7 au 9 juillet 2008 Lire l'annonce *•"Internet des objets, internet du futur"* Conférence de la présidence française de l'Union Européenne les 6 et 7 octobre 2008 à Nice Lire l'annonce *•"Colloque international EUTIC 08 – Lisbonne au carrefour des mondes numériques"* Du 22 au 25 octobre 2008 à Lisbonne Lire l'annonce *•L'internet : Questions de gouvernance et de droit. La société civile et la gouvernance de la communication multimodale" * Du 26 au 29 octobre 2008, Université Mac Gill, Montréal Lire l'annonce ** *DIVERS **• "Les Assises du numérique"* Lancement le 29 mai 2008 à l'université Paris-Dauphine Lire l'annonce * **• Programme de la 32ème réunion internationale de l'ICANN *Du 21 au 27 juin 2008, Paris Lire l'annonce *• Programme d'EGENI 2008* Le 20 juin 2008, Paris* * Lire l'annonce *• Publication du 28ème rapport d'activité de la CNIL * Lire l'annonce *• Publication du rapport de la Commission Européenne sur l'initiative i2010 * Lire l'annonce * * ------------------------------ Editeur : Vox Internet - Programme de recherche soutenu par l'ANR http://www.voxinternet.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ginger at paque.net Mon Jun 2 12:02:11 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:32:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Discussion analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4844199a.1c1d640a.7ff2.4cb3@mx.google.com> Robert Guerra said: 1. I'm curious if an analysis has been done on the comments posted on this thread to date - specifically the gender, linguistic diversity and regional breakdown of who is posting, and the positions being put forward. Ginger says: That would be very interesting. I don't know how valuable, or of what use, but it would sure be interesting. So might a chart showing who knows whom, and what previous relationships they have had. Robert Guerra said: though a select few seem to be posting far too often, others - seem to quiet. As this seems an important topic, let's make sure that all members of this list - be encouraged, and given the chance to comment. Ginger says: I think each person posts as often as they see fit, by their own criteria, and that there is no "too often" or "too quiet". Some of us are, ok, some would say, "lurking"-but I would say watching and learning. I am observing discussions by people I have read, seen on panels and agreed or disagreed with. It is interesting to contrast prepared presentations to these impromptu behind-the-scenes conversations. But I would say these are discussions that are sometimes challenging to really understand and digest, much less join. Discussion lists can be a spectator sport :-) as well as online learning. Saludos (Greetings, in Spanish) Ginger _____ De: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] Enviado el: Lunes, 02 de Junio de 2008 08:50 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest Having followed this thread I have a couple of comments: 1. I'm curious if an analysis has been done on the comments posted on this thread to date - specifically the gender, linguistic diversity and regional breakdown of who is posting, and the positions being put forward. though a select few seem to be posting far too often, others - seem to quiet. As this seems an important topic, let's make sure that all members of this list - be encouraged, and given the chance to comment. 2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC discussions. During phase II of WSIS as well as post-wsis, i have had the chance to better appreciate the role and contribution played by Regional Internet Registries (RIR's) in the IG discussions. Two particularly, i followed closely - that being LACNIC & ARIN. LACNIC's role in engaging a wide set of stakeholders in the latin american & Carribean region is to be commended. They are a very active stakeholder in the LAC region, and contribute to the regional (mostly spanish & portuguese) IG list. From what colleagues in the region tell me - they are quite respected and seen as a good example of facilitator, one that brings different stakeholders together. Having an actor such is this active and involved in the IGC, in my opinion - is much needed. In my view, the decision weither or not it should have full representation on this list (and structures it creates) should be determined not by those unfamiliar with its work - but instead from CS from the LAC region. When consulting views from the LAC region - one will find much support, and this should be taken into consideration by those who seem to post ad-nausem about this topic. In terms of comments about ARIN , I have the upmost respect for them - Ray and others - as well. The comments I mention about LACNIC, equally apply. But, I will add some additional comments - that being commending ARIN for their outreach and engagement at the recent NTEN conference in New Orleans. Sharing information about IG and engaging non-profits, and the public at large is a role - all of us should be be doing - but, few are. ARIN's efforts in this regard is to be commended. As someone from the NA region - who knows their their consultation and PDP are truly bottom up - would recommend their full member of this caucus. Thus - of the two RIR's that I know - seem to have the processes and track record of effectively engaging the public and CS . Simply ignoring the fact, is not recognizing the hundreds of voices who speak at their public meetings. RIR's in my view - bring a value, experience and knowledge of their regions to the IG discussion table. Their consultation processes are open, and in many ways represent far more "CS" then many on list. To simple ignore their role or importance - is just wrong. It my opinion, to summarily dismiss their role, importance and exclude them as a full member of this caucus - would be a strategic mistake. regards Robert On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Rui Correia [02/06/08 14:19 +0200]: 20 pages??? writing 20 pages??? you must be judging others by your own verbal incontinence. Unless necessary - eg, for academic purposes - I can say anything I need to say in less than 50 words. I believe my last email was addressed to Parminder, not you. I've already said what I need to say. If a few people on the list "fail" to understand them and keep making the same wrong arguments, I have, perforce, to repeat myself. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 12:31:31 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:31:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Discussion analysis In-Reply-To: <4844199a.1c1d640a.7ff2.4cb3@mx.google.com> References: <4844199a.1c1d640a.7ff2.4cb3@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Ginger wrote "Discussion lists can be a spectator sport J as well as online learning". I agree with the latter (onlin larning) and abhor the first that appears some what perjorative. People are spectators of a sport for playrs performances for which they gain moral satisfaction. But a spectator in an Online discussion? Me think not. May be the allusion to "quiet" subscribers to the list discusion is what preempted that conclusion. Some forumers are quiet because some topics are not within their centre of interest. Unless, we will say that we are out for Jacks of all trades on this forum. This will be more difficult to obtain than landing man on Jupiter Aaron On 6/2/08, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > Robert Guerra said: > > 1. I'm curious if an analysis has been done on the comments posted on this > thread to date - specifically the gender, linguistic diversity and regional > breakdown of who is posting, and the positions being put forward. > > > > Ginger says: > > That would be very interesting. I don't know how valuable, or of what use, > but it would sure be interesting. So might a chart showing who knows whom, > and what previous relationships they have had. > > > > Robert Guerra said: > > though a select few seem to be posting far too often, others - seem to > quiet. As this seems an important topic, let's make sure that all members of > this list - be encouraged, and given the chance to comment. > > > > Ginger says: > > I think each person posts as often as they see fit, by their own criteria, > and that there is no "too often" or "too quiet". Some of us are, ok, some > would say, "lurking"—but I would say watching and learning. I am observing > discussions by people I have read, seen on panels and agreed or disagreed > with. It is interesting to contrast prepared presentations to these > impromptu behind-the-scenes conversations. But I would say these are > discussions that are sometimes challenging to really understand and digest, > much less join. Discussion lists can be a spectator sport J as well as > online learning. > > > > Saludos (Greetings, in Spanish) > > Ginger > ________________________________ > > > De: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] > Enviado el: Lunes, 02 de Junio de 2008 08:50 a.m. > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > > > Having followed this thread I have a couple of comments: > > 1. I'm curious if an analysis has been done on the comments posted on this > thread to date - specifically the gender, linguistic diversity and regional > breakdown of who is posting, and the positions being put forward. > > though a select few seem to be posting far too often, others - seem to > quiet. As this seems an important topic, let's make sure that all members of > this list - be encouraged, and given the chance to comment. > > > 2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC > discussions. > > > During phase II of WSIS as well as post-wsis, i have had the chance to > better appreciate the role and contribution played by Regional Internet > Registries (RIR's) in the IG discussions. Two particularly, i followed > closely - that being LACNIC & ARIN. > > LACNIC's role in engaging a wide set of stakeholders in the latin american & > Carribean region is to be commended. They are a very active stakeholder in > the LAC region, and contribute to the regional (mostly spanish & portuguese) > IG list. From what colleagues in the region tell me - they are quite > respected and seen as a good example of facilitator, one that brings > different stakeholders together. > > Having an actor such is this active and involved in the IGC, in my opinion - > is much needed. In my view, the decision weither or not it should have full > representation on this list (and structures it creates) should be determined > not by those unfamiliar with its work - but instead from CS from the LAC > region. When consulting views from the LAC region - one will find much > support, and this should be taken into consideration by those who seem to > post ad-nausem about this topic. > > In terms of comments about ARIN , I have the upmost respect for them - Ray > and others - as well. The comments I mention about LACNIC, equally apply. > But, I will add some additional comments - that being commending ARIN for > their outreach and engagement at the recent NTEN conference in New Orleans. > Sharing information about IG and engaging non-profits, and the public at > large is a role - all of us should be be doing - but, few are. ARIN's > efforts in this regard is to be commended. > > As someone from the NA region - who knows their their consultation and PDP > are truly bottom up - would recommend their full member of this caucus. > > Thus - of the two RIR's that I know - seem to have the processes and track > record of effectively engaging the public and CS . Simply ignoring the fact, > is not recognizing the hundreds of voices who speak at their public > meetings. > > > RIR's in my view - bring a value, experience and knowledge of their regions > to the IG discussion table. Their consultation processes are open, and in > many ways represent far more "CS" then many on list. To simple ignore their > role or importance - is just wrong. It my opinion, to summarily dismiss > their role, importance and exclude them as a full member of this caucus - > would be a strategic mistake. > > regards > > Robert > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Rui Correia [02/06/08 14:19 +0200]: > > > > > 20 pages??? writing 20 pages??? you must be judging others by your own > verbal incontinence. Unless necessary - eg, for academic purposes - I > can say anything I need to say in less than 50 words. > > > > I believe my last email was addressed to Parminder, not you. > > I've already said what I need to say. If a few people on the list "fail" to > understand them and keep making the same wrong arguments, I have, perforce, > to repeat myself. > > 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 > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 2 12:53:16 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:53:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC discussions. Robert, I think you have missed the target in this increasingly tiresome discussion. No one - not me, not Parminder, not anyone else - has ever proposed to exclude RIR representatives from our discussions. Indeed, I have urged people here to get involved in RIR policy discussion lists, and vice-versa. No one disputes that RIRs play an important role in global IG, either. As has been said repeatedly, the real issue is: who represents us on the MAG - "us" being the IGC - when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF? Do you want an RIR staff person or an independent voice? Same goes for ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a problem if our "representative" in discussions of ICANN is someone who works for ICANN? No one has ever said that ICANN or an RIR should not be able to participate in the broader discussions of their role in global internet governance. The issue is who represents _us_ in that discussion. As I said earlier, RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs. As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ not to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be accountable to and listen to what the different sectors of society have to say about IG policy. They are welcome on our list, they are welcome in our dialogue. But they are not our representatives. They are representatives of their own memberships. I don't see how anyone can deny this simple observation. IG organizations should not have a dual, contradictory role. And since RIRs are extremely well-resourced organizations that are well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to understand this manufactured complaint about their somehow being excluded and powerless in these dialogues. It is getting a bit silly, is it not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Mon Jun 2 13:10:41 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:10:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do not represent any external group. That point has been made repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below was just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a crucial distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting its representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the MAG. I know that it must be frustrating not to be able to draw your own conclusions from direct observation, but it is my opinion that the majority of MAG members, when speaking in MAG meetings, do try to represent a general and public interest, admittedly each through their individual lenses, rather than being explicitly channeled by narrower interests dictated by their background or the organization from which they come. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:53 PM -0400 6/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8C4D1.26A98532" > > > > >From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] > >2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC >discussions. > >Robert, >I think you have missed the target in this increasingly tiresome >discussion. No one - not me, not Parminder, not anyone else - has >ever proposed to exclude RIR representatives from our discussions. >Indeed, I have urged people here to get involved in RIR policy >discussion lists, and vice-versa. No one disputes that RIRs play an >important role in global IG, either. As has been said repeatedly, >the real issue is: who represents us on the MAG - "us" being the IGC >- when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF? Do you want >an RIR staff person or an independent voice? Same goes for ICANN, >ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a problem if our "representative" in >discussions of ICANN is someone who works for ICANN? No one has ever >said that ICANN or an RIR should not be able to participate in the >broader discussions of their role in global internet governance. The >issue is who represents _us_ in that discussion. >As I said earlier, >RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed >of commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common >consumers of IP address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and >CS groups. RIRs are better thought of as multi-stakeholder >regulatory organizations, not as CS, business or govt. Within the >framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit squarely in the >category of "international organizations" along with ICANN. So of >course RIRs and ICANN, like other international governance >organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely should be >represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs. >As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ >not to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be accountable to >and listen to what the different sectors of society have to say >about IG policy. They are welcome on our list, they are welcome in >our dialogue. But they are not our representatives. They are >representatives of their own memberships. I don't see how anyone can >deny this simple observation. IG organizations should not have a >dual, contradictory role. And since RIRs are extremely >well-resourced organizations that are well-represented in every >conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to understand this manufactured >complaint about their somehow being excluded and powerless in these >dialogues. It is getting a bit silly, is it not? > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- 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 bkuerbis at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 14:09:39 2008 From: bkuerbis at gmail.com (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:09:39 -0400 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do In-Reply-To: <3DA1E82C-27A5-43E6-8AA8-358CA38E79F5@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB749D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <3DA1E82C-27A5-43E6-8AA8-358CA38E79F5@psg.com> Message-ID: <28cfc1a40806021109p423a3b22yab0ec1d86a01d332@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I am not sure I understand the issue. > > The IGF secretariat makes information available on its web site. It does, as best it can with the meager resources it has, but IMO it's in the wrong format. One way to make it more useful would be to utilize RSS more. The Secretariat advertises a feed on the home page (http://intgovforum.org/igf_rss_feed.xml), but the last entry is December 8, 2007. Is there another feed(s) that isn't broken? > In > understand that some people are comfortable with that web site and some > people are not. > Avri, it's more than that. (btw, marketing 101, never call your customers stupid ;-)). Using such "Web 2.0" technology more effectively could get the activities of the Secretariat and the MAG more exposure, which are good things from a marketing (i.e., Secretariat self-interest), and more importantly, governance perspective. E.g., it sure would be nice to have an IGF events feed so I could create a widget that could be placed on someone's blog or website. Or it sure would be great if I had an IGF transcript feed so I could easily create audio files for podcasting. Right now I have to go to the IGF site and rummage around in the very user-unfriendly environment (or if I know what I need, use Google and simply avoid the mess) or depend on individuals on various listservs for updates. Provide the information in a usable format* and you'll be amazed what others do with it. > I don't remember anyone ever telling anyone that they could not startup a > user participation site of their own. > You're right. But obviously some people are concerned. This would become a non-issue if, 1) the Secretariat provides information in a format that is "sociable" as suggested above and 2) as Milton mentioned, the Secretariat (with the help of the user community) builds the organizational processes (and, IMO, the secondary technological interfaces) necessary for online participants to contribute and participate in the Forums. The first issue is more easily surmountable, the second, we'll see... But if the IGF succeeds in doing those things, I bet you'll see a wealth of IGF participation sites. Best, Brenden *it's possible to create social media from unsociable media using tools like feedity.com, feed43.com, or dapper.net, but c'mon, how about a little division of labor? > > a. > > > > On 1 Jun 2008, at 22:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] >>> >>> Ken, >>> >>> The point is the opposite: >>> >>> The 'UN' should NOT be more involved in supporting the community's >> >> virtual >>> >>> organization. >>> >> >> Right! >> The whole world is atwitter with the peer production phenomenon, (here's >> one of the best and most recent entries: http://isbn.nu/978-1594201530 ) >> and we know that it bloody well works! >> >> The UN needs to let go enough to allow the repressed energy of the IGF >> community to take up the slack. It simply needs to establish a neutral >> framework for channeling that energy into performance of various >> secretariat functions. The IGF will become much more successful if it >> does so, and the UN will end up looking better. >> >> IGP hinted at this with the "Distributed Secretariat" paper years ago >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Jun 2 14:15:06 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:15:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD-11 outcome documents Message-ID: <200806021813.m52IDweE027064@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the four unedited outcome documents of the 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, including the substantive Resolution and two decisions in relation with the participation of civil society in the CSTD. - Resolution 1 - Entitled "Assessment of WSIS-implementation 2008", contains two main chapters: A. Evolving challenges and opportunities (digital divide, broadband divide, cost of access, mobile, security, gender); and B. Successes and shortcomings in the implementation of WSIS outcomes so far (in relation to the post WSIS architecture, IGF, ALF, enhanced cooperation). - Resolution 2 - Entitled "Participation of Academic entities in the work of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development", allows academic entities, both accredited or non-accredited to WSIS, to participate in the CSTD. The model used to allow invitation of academic entities is based on the status of private sector and business observers. It also calls governments and other to provide voluntary contributions supporting the participation of civil society from developing countries. - Decision 1 - states that "the Commission will report on its work on science and technology themes for the current biennium in its twelfth session". - Decision 2 - Entitled "Participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society entities in the twelfth and thirteenth sessions of the CSTD" extends the interim modalities for the involvement of the WSIS accredited CS entities in the work of the Commission for two more years. This leaves a bit more time for the Committee on NGOs to consider application of NGOs accredited to WSIS. Resolution 2 and Decision 1 are quite important in taking on board the heritage of the WSIS stakeholders' list. It strengthens the multi-stakeholder approach within the CSTD and hopefully will be accompanied in the upcoming years by further improvements. There were a bit more than 15 NGO representatives participating in most of the CSTD session (plus some others from the NGO crowd in Geneva) so that I'll leave them comment on the substantive content of the session. Parminder was invited to speak in the opening ceremony of the CSTD on Monday and also made a presentation to introduce the priority theme related to WSIS follow up "Development-oriented policies for a socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and enabling environment". Anriette was panellist in the multi-stakeholder broadband panel. Civil society representatives could ask for the floor during almost each of the 3-hour meetings of the CSTD by raising their hands from the floor. The overall format of the session was far from the interaction we experience at the IGF, but there were some noticeable improvements in comparison with last years' session in terms of flexibility and regularity of the opportunities to take the floor (the work schedule of the session was more articulated around 3-hour debates, during each of which NGOs could ask for the floor). Precedents from last year were also maintained (CS speaker in the opening, one Bureau meeting with CS and the private sector, CS and PS invited to seat in the informal negotiations and invited to make inputs at the early stages of negotiations, possibility to make written inputs). The challenges ahead for civil society will be: - making the annual CTSD session more substantive, more result oriented and more interactive, meaning strengthening a transparent and more inclusive preparatory process; - consolidating and increase the civil society inputs in the proceedings and the outcome of the session; - improving the format of the Action Line meetings and their articulation with the CSTD work. Unfortunately the session was not webcasted. I would encourage CS participants to add their inputs to this very basic and preliminary report. Best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: res1.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: res2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dec1.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dec2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 15:58:05 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:58:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > No one disputes that RIRs play an important role in global IG, either. As > has been said repeatedly, the real issue is: who represents us on the MAG – Actually the real issue IS: our charter says we are all equal, in terms of having the same rights. The NomCom has decided to change this, many disagree. How do we make sure that this doesn't happen again. I will be glad to address what you think the real issue is, below > "us" being the IGC Yes, we ARE the IGC, but for some reason we allow any CS Tom, CS Dick or CS Harry to be nominated to the MAG (except of course if they are fulltime employees of ....). If you are so fired up about who represents 'us", then why aren't you concerned that people who may have little or no knowledge about 'us" are able to represent "us"?? > – when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF? Well, now you are missing the target. AFAIK, RIR policy is rarely discussed at the IGF, but we are actually talking about the MAG nominees. I have not seen any mention of any actual RIR policy in the MAG meeting minutes or list archives. > Do you want an RIR staff person or an independent voice? It's a bit complicated, so let's see if you can follow; RIRs don't set numbering policies, neither do their members (as a set of people), its the community that sets policy, this can include members, and everyone else who chooses to participate. RIR staff are like rapporteurs, they document and communicate the policies, make sure the policies are followed, and do a variety of other things to support the community and the Internet at large. They are very knowledgeable, yet independent (they can't be biased for or against certain members for example, or certain policies for that matter). So, to answer your question; "we" would be far better off having someone who knows numbering policy inside and out when it comes to "RIR policy in the context of the IGF" rather than someone "independent" but almost certainly less knowledgeable! Same goes for > ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a problem if our "representative" in > discussions of ICANN is someone who works for ICANN? No one has ever said > that ICANN or an RIR should not be able to participate in the broader > discussions of their role in global internet governance. The issue is who > represents _us_ in that discussion. Actually, how they get chosen is the issue. If the IGC wants to exclude ICANN, ITU or WIPO staff from representing them, then a NomCom can either decline to put their individual names forward OR the entire IGC can decide to put these exclusions in the charter. A NomCom shouldn't make decisions for the whole group. > > As I said earlier, > > RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of > commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP > address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are > better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as CS, > business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit > squarely in the category of "international organizations" along with ICANN. > So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international governance > organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely should be > represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs. > > As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ not to us > (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be accountable to and listen to what > the different sectors of society have to say about IG policy. What the RIRs have done on EC shows that they DO listen to everybody. They are > welcome on our list, they are welcome in our dialogue. But they are not our > representatives. Certainly not according to NomCom 2008! But they SHOULD BE ABLE to represent 'us", at least in the case when they are charter signers, as all those have "equal rights and duties" > They are representatives of their own memberships. Yes, they are, in a manner of speaking, just as you represent IGP members on the MAG, or Ken represents Panos Institute West Africa, his full time employer (Ken please correct me if I'm wrong about your employer). I don't > see how anyone can deny this simple observation. I'm not. Granted, they are supposed to represent "in their personal capacity", but I don't doubt that CS nominees represent their full time employers to a certain extent. So they have the same "potential conflict" as those who work for "IG organisations". No one has yet to refute this simple observation of mine. IG organizations should not > have a dual, contradictory role. Well, since all MAG members represent their employer to some extent AND in their "personal capacity", I'd say they all have this dual, sometimes contradictory role, no? And since RIRs are extremely well-resourced Not all of them. > organizations that are well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is > hard to understand this manufactured Is there a factory that turns out complaints? That would be convenient! In all seriousness, it is a very real (not artificial as the adjective 'manufactured" suggests) violation of the spirit of the charter that we are discussing. complaint > about their somehow being > excluded Somehow excluded? I would say it's a very concrete exclusion, not nebulous at all, as the word "somehow" suggests. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 19:04:06 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:04:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] OECD ministerial background report on Malware Message-ID: <48447c66.HbWdHZ4vYdRBn+qb%suresh@hserus.net> Recommends a multistakeholder approach, top down / bottom up initiatives .. Very well written and comprehensive. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/34/40724457.pdf from the intro: "In light of the need for a holistic and comprehensive approach to malware to effectively reduce malicious activity on the Internet, this report suggests to organising a global Anti-Malware Partnership involving governments, the private sector, the technical community and civil society to produce joined-up policy guidance to fight malware on all fronts from educational to technical to legal and economical." A more specific paper (which makes much the same points) - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolkit-background.pdf srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jun 2 19:32:09 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking Message-ID: Time Warner Cable tries metering Internet use By PETER SVENSSON http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwm8wu3jZWZLcKfIlycqFqFegknwD9126HN8A NEW YORK (AP) — You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell phone minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer goes over its Internet allowance? Time Warner Cable Inc. customers — and, later, others — may have to, if the company's test of metered Internet access is successful. On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press. Metered billing is an attempt to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among Time Warner Cable's subscribers, said Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable's executive vice president of advanced technology. Just 5 percent of the company's subscribers take up half of the capacity on local cable lines, Leddy said. Other cable Internet service providers report a similar distribution. "We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said. Metered usage is common overseas, and other U.S. cable providers are looking at ways to rein in heavy users. Most have download caps, but some keep the caps secret so as not to alarm the majority of users, who come nowhere close to the limits. Time Warner Cable appears to be the first major ISP to charge for going over the limit: Other companies warn, then suspend, those who go over. Phone companies are less concerned about congestion and are unlikely to impose metered usage on DSL customers, because their networks are structured differently. Time Warner Cable had said in January that it was planning to conduct the trial in Beaumont, but did not give any details. On Monday, Leddy said its tiers will range from $29.95 a month for relatively slow service at 768 kilobits per second and a 5-gigabyte monthly cap to $54.90 per month for fast downloads at 15 megabits per second and a 40-gigabyte cap. Those prices cover the Internet portion of subscription bundles that include video or phone services. Both downloads and uploads will count toward the monthly cap. A possible stumbling block for Time Warner Cable is that customers have had little reason so far to pay attention to how much they download from the Internet, or know much traffic makes up a gigabyte. That uncertainty could scare off new subscribers. Those who mainly do Web surfing or e-mail have little reason to pay attention to the traffic caps: a gigabyte is about 3,000 Web pages, or 15,000 e-mails without attachments. But those who download movies or TV shows will want to pay attention. A standard-definition movie can take up 1.5 gigabytes, and a high-definition movie can be 6 to 8 gigabytes. Time Warner Cable subscribers will be able to check out their data consumption on a "gas gauge" on the company's Web page. The company won't apply the gigabyte surcharges for the first two months. It has 90,000 customers in the trial area, but only new subscribers will be part of the trial. Billing by the hour was common for dial-up service in the U.S. until AOL introduced an unlimited-usage plan in 1996. Flat-rate, unlimited-usage plans have been credited with encouraging consumer Internet use by making billing easy to understand. "The metered Internet has been tried and tested and rejected by the consumers overwhelmingly since the days of AOL," information-technology consultant George Ou told the Federal Communications Commission at a hearing on ISP practices in April. Metered billing could also put a crimp in the plans of services like Apple Inc.'s iTunes that use the Internet to deliver video. DVD-by-mail pioneer Netflix Inc. just launched a TV set-top box that receives an unlimited stream of Internet video for as little as $8.99 per month. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable company, has suggested that it may cap usage at 250 gigabytes per month. Bend Cable Communications in Bend, Ore., used to have multitier bandwidth allowances, like the ones Time Warner Cable will test, but it abandoned them in favor of an across-the-board 100-gigabyte cap. Bend charges $1.50 per extra gigabyte consumed in a month. On the Net: http://www.timewarnercable.com http://www.bendcable.com -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon Jun 2 19:34:31 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:34:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <48418F4F.7070401@wzb.eu> References: <20080531172437.794A667989@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48418F4F.7070401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48448387.9000005@cavebear.com> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Having followed this discussion now for I don't know how long, my > personal conclusion is that exclusions based on formal stakeholder > categories is neither fair nor very effective. I tend to agree with this with one additional condition: People should neither be included nor given preference based on any categorization or affiliation. In other words, internet governance should aspire to treat each person as a unique person - a unique bundle of talents, knowledge, opinions, and conflicts. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 19:39:46 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:09:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001701c8c509$f254f250$d6fed6f0$@net> Most people in the world already ARE subject to that. There are several far more expert commentators on bandwidth as a bulk commodity - when buying large circuits, say Comcast and other cable operators have, so far, subsidized this heavily, run into issues maintaining the subsidy and are trying out various things to dig themselves out of that hole. Not a very interesting issue as far as governance goes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:02 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Time Warner Cable tries metering Internet use > By PETER SVENSSON > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwm8wu3jZWZLcKfIlycqFqFegknwD9126HN8 > A > > NEW YORK (AP) — You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell > phone > minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer > goes over > its Internet allowance? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jun 2 19:48:08 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: 001701c8c509$f254f250$d6fed6f0$@net Message-ID: Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA Where are you at? and how much do you pay? for domestic service. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 19:57:14 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:27:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: 001701c8c509$f254f250$d6fed6f0$@net Message-ID: <002401c8c50c$632333f0$29699bd0$@net> India, and I pay something like $30 a month for a 8 GB per month 2 Mbit ADSL You want to ask our colleagues from Africa what they pay, and for what kind of connectivity? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. > > I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA > > Where are you at? and how much do you pay? > for domestic service. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Jun 2 21:06:08 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 03/06/2008, at 1:10 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point > out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do > not represent any external group. That point has been made > repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. Yet it has also been repeatedly observed on this list that the assertion is simplistic and incomplete (well explained for example by Parminder at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00266.html) . It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not appointed to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to represent (in a broad sense) their stakeholder groups. Were this not the case, there would be no point in ensuring balance between stakeholders at all. The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which the best qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of stakeholder balance. But in fact the distinct values and interests of the governmental, private sector and civil society representatives are central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too). > I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below was > just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a crucial > distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting its > representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they > have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective > MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the MAG. Without detracting from the above, on a purely political level this is also an idealistic account of the motivations of those groups that nominate candidates for the MAG. Given that the Secretariat/Secretary- General seems to have an unstated policy of privileging nominations made through representative groups like the IGC over individual nominations, why wouldn't the groups so privileged nominate those whom they are confident will best represent the group's collective views rather than a broader "public interest"? I, for one, am happier to see strong progressive civil society voices on our MAG slate who can argue robustly against the interests of governments and the private sector. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 2 21:15:22 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:45:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <003501c8c517$4d5d9f00$e818dd00$@net> That, Jeremy, is not an acceptable conclusion - or one that is shared by several people on the list as you can see. The other problem is that you have a weird and wonderful definition of 1. Progress, or Progressive And 2. Civil Society srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:36 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest > > On 03/06/2008, at 1:10 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > > When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point > > out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do > > not represent any external group. That point has been made > > repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. > > Yet it has also been repeatedly observed on this list that the > assertion is simplistic and incomplete (well explained for example by > Parminder at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008- > 03/msg00266.html) > . It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not > appointed to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to > represent (in a broad sense) their stakeholder groups. Were this not > the case, there would be no point in ensuring balance between > stakeholders at all. The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which > the best qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of > stakeholder balance. But in fact the distinct values and interests of > the governmental, private sector and civil society representatives are > central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too). > > > I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below was > > just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a crucial > > distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting its > > representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they > > have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective > > MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the MAG. > > Without detracting from the above, on a purely political level this is > also an idealistic account of the motivations of those groups that > nominate candidates for the MAG. Given that the Secretariat/Secretary- > General seems to have an unstated policy of privileging nominations > made through representative groups like the IGC over individual > nominations, why wouldn't the groups so privileged nominate those whom > they are confident will best represent the group's collective views > rather than a broader "public interest"? I, for one, am happier to > see strong progressive civil society voices on our MAG slate who can > argue robustly against the interests of governments and the private > sector. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Jun 2 21:14:48 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:14:48 -0300 Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic In-Reply-To: <07b801c8c237$a4209e10$ec61da30$@net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch> <1212137354.483fbf8aa5fd4@heimail.unige.ch> <07b801c8c237$a4209e10$ec61da30$@net> Message-ID: <48449B08.6040001@rits.org.br> This forum is getting disgustingly gory... --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> You want disruptive? I'm in Shanghai and just had something for lunch >> that was called, Beijing Bombs Pig's Large Intestine by Fragile Skin of > Spring >> Onion. Urp... > > There's Fuqi Feipian - so-called "couples lung" .. Ox's scalp, tongue, > abdomen, sometimes also lung, served with the typical szechwanese mala sauce > (the one that burns your mouth out and numbs it at the same time) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Jun 2 21:18:38 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:18:38 +0800 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40806021109p423a3b22yab0ec1d86a01d332@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB749D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <3DA1E82C-27A5-43E6-8AA8-358CA38E79F5@psg.com> <28cfc1a40806021109p423a3b22yab0ec1d86a01d332@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <77787694-2A72-4637-86D9-6DED4D7657FB@Malcolm.id.au> On 03/06/2008, at 2:09 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > It does, as best it can with the meager resources it has, but IMO it's > in the wrong format. One way to make it more useful would be to > utilize RSS more. The Secretariat advertises a feed on the home page > (http://intgovforum.org/igf_rss_feed.xml), but the last entry is > December 8, 2007. Is there another feed(s) that isn't broken? No there isn't a non-broken official feed. There is a meta-feed of unofficial IGF-related resources at http://igf-online.net/gregarius that aspires to completeness, but could do with more source feeds. > E.g., it sure would be nice to have an IGF events feed > so I could create a widget that could be placed on someone's blog or > website. Or it sure would be great if I had an IGF transcript feed so > I could easily create audio files for podcasting. Exactly, and even if these were not provided in RSS format, it would be sufficient that they were provided in some other open format such as a Web service that others could repurpose in the manner you describe. (Brenden, please consider contributing to the early draft requirements document at http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community , which I think you will find to be on your wavelength.) I won't forward my off-list conversation with Chengetai Masango without permission, but the problem we run into is the Secretariat is willing to devote no resources to this. The Rio meeting, for those privileged enough to make it, came with a seven-figure price tag, but for the majority of Internet users who cannot make it out of their home country, any investment above $0 is too much to justify. -- 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 Mon Jun 2 22:45:51 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Cost of Access - per UN's OECD Message-ID: So I did a little homework ... The UN's OECD publishes the: OECD Communications Outlook 2007 Publication Page: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&lang=EN&st1=932007021e1 PDF Download: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/get-it.asp?REF=9307021E.PDF&TYPE=browse - Les perspectives des communications de l'OCDE 2007 Publication Page http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5L4W0J830MZR Download le PDF: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/get-it.asp?REF=9307022E.PDF&TYPE=browse -- A graphics chart: http://gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/broadbandpricespermegabit.jpg --- Of note: Wikipedia: Internet access worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access_worldwide ---- Sweden #1 The cheapest broadband plan, according to OECD is available in Sweden: $10.47 a month. Art.Ref. http://gigaom.com/2007/07/13/oecd-report-in-us-broadband-is-really-expensive/ -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 puna_gb at yahoo.com Tue Jun 3 03:11:13 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <002401c8c50c$632333f0$29699bd0$@net> Message-ID: <380420.68659.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello! In Botswana (Africa), we pay about 600 Pula (about $100) per month for ADSL at a speed of 512 kbps... and there are a few pre-requisites like that you need to have a voice line before you can connect a data line.  And the $100 includes a subscription fee for the voice line as well. That said, only a few people can afford it. And Dial up connection is excruciatingly slow, and probably more costly since you end up spending more time trying to connect.  This essentially means if you really want to be connected you have to go for ADSL.   Does that help Suresh? --- On Tue, 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote: From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Yehuda Katz'" <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 2:57 AM India, and I pay something like $30 a month for a 8 GB per month 2 Mbit ADSL You want to ask our colleagues from Africa what they pay, and for what kind of connectivity? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. > > I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA > > Where are you at? and how much do you pay? > for domestic service. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 3 03:22:41 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:52:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <380420.68659.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <002401c8c50c$632333f0$29699bd0$@net> <380420.68659.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002901c8c54a$9de76ae0$d9b640a0$@net> Hi I kind of know what bandwidth (and consumer grade access like dialup / adsl) costs in Africa. I simply wanted some African colleagues to cite examples, for Mr.Katz's information.. he is kind of upset that Comcast is thinking of providing metered bandwidth (250 gigabytes transfer a month) after offering an unlimited data plan. From: Gao Mosweu [mailto:puna_gb at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Yehuda Katz' Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking Hello! In Botswana (Africa), we pay about 600 Pula (about $100) per month for ADSL at a speed of 512 kbps... and there are a few pre-requisites like that you need to have a voice line before you can connect a data line. And the $100 includes a subscription fee for the voice line as well. That said, only a few people can afford it. And Dial up connection is excruciatingly slow, and probably more costly since you end up spending more time trying to connect. This essentially means if you really want to be connected you have to go for ADSL. Does that help Suresh? --- On Tue, 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Yehuda Katz'" Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 2:57 AM India, and I pay something like $30 a month for a 8 GB per month 2 Mbit ADSL You want to ask our colleagues from Africa what they pay, and for what kind of connectivity? srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. > > I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA > > Where are you at? and how much do you pay? > for domestic service. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Jun 3 03:59:35 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:59:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1212479975.4844f9e755f9e@heimail.unige.ch> Quoting Milton L Mueller : > powerless in these dialogues. It is getting a bit silly, is it not? A bit, yes. BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Jun 3 04:34:23 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:34:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD-11 outcome documents In-Reply-To: <200806021813.m52IDweE027064@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200806030833.m538XDmE009817@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Just a correction here: The text on academic institutions is actually of course a draft Decision – and not a resolution. See attached the advanced version as adopted on Friday. Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : lundi, 2. juin 2008 19:15 À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance' Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD-11 outcome documents Importance : Haute Dear all, Find attached the four unedited outcome documents of the 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, including the substantive Resolution and two decisions in relation with the participation of civil society in the CSTD. - Resolution 1 – Entitled “Assessment of WSIS-implementation 2008”, contains two main chapters: A. Evolving challenges and opportunities (digital divide, broadband divide, cost of access, mobile, security, gender); and B. Successes and shortcomings in the implementation of WSIS outcomes so far (in relation to the post WSIS architecture, IGF, ALF, enhanced cooperation). - Resolution 2 – Entitled “Participation of Academic entities in the work of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development”, allows academic entities, both accredited or non-accredited to WSIS, to participate in the CSTD. The model used to allow invitation of academic entities is based on the status of private sector and business observers. It also calls governments and other to provide voluntary contributions supporting the participation of civil society from developing countries. - Decision 1 – states that ”the Commission will report on its work on science and technology themes for the current biennium in its twelfth session”. - Decision 2 – Entitled “Participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society entities in the twelfth and thirteenth sessions of the CSTD” extends the interim modalities for the involvement of the WSIS accredited CS entities in the work of the Commission for two more years. This leaves a bit more time for the Committee on NGOs to consider application of NGOs accredited to WSIS. Resolution 2 and Decision 1 are quite important in taking on board the heritage of the WSIS stakeholders’ list. It strengthens the multi-stakeholder approach within the CSTD and hopefully will be accompanied in the upcoming years by further improvements. There were a bit more than 15 NGO representatives participating in most of the CSTD session (plus some others from the NGO crowd in Geneva) so that I’ll leave them comment on the substantive content of the session. Parminder was invited to speak in the opening ceremony of the CSTD on Monday and also made a presentation to introduce the priority theme related to WSIS follow up “Development-oriented policies for a socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and enabling environment”. Anriette was panellist in the multi-stakeholder broadband panel. Civil society representatives could ask for the floor during almost each of the 3-hour meetings of the CSTD by raising their hands from the floor. The overall format of the session was far from the interaction we experience at the IGF, but there were some noticeable improvements in comparison with last years’ session in terms of flexibility and regularity of the opportunities to take the floor (the work schedule of the session was more articulated around 3-hour debates, during each of which NGOs could ask for the floor). Precedents from last year were also maintained (CS speaker in the opening, one Bureau meeting with CS and the private sector, CS and PS invited to seat in the informal negotiations and invited to make inputs at the early stages of negotiations, possibility to make written inputs). The challenges ahead for civil society will be: - making the annual CTSD session more substantive, more result oriented and more interactive, meaning strengthening a transparent and more inclusive preparatory process; - consolidating and increase the civil society inputs in the proceedings and the outcome of the session; - improving the format of the Action Line meetings and their articulation with the CSTD work. Unfortunately the session was not webcasted. I would encourage CS participants to add their inputs to this very basic and preliminary report. Best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dec3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 08:05:14 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Jeremy, I guess that you believe in confrontation of stakeholders' interests as a way to make progress. I would rather believe in, and practice, cooperation in finding acceptable middle grounds. But of course if you believe in absolutes, that must be unacceptable. George At 9:06 AM +0800 6/3/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 03/06/2008, at 1:10 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point >>out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do >>not represent any external group. That point has been made >>repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. > >Yet it has also been repeatedly observed on this list that the >assertion is simplistic and incomplete (well explained for example >by Parminder at >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00266.html). >It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not appointed >to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to represent (in a >broad sense) their stakeholder groups. Were this not the case, >there would be no point in ensuring balance between stakeholders at >all. The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which the best >qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of stakeholder >balance. But in fact the distinct values and interests of the >governmental, private sector and civil society representatives are >central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too). > >>I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below >>was just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a >>crucial distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting >>its representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom >>they have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as >>effective MAG members in the public interest, according to the >>rules of the MAG. > >Without detracting from the above, on a purely political level this >is also an idealistic account of the motivations of those groups >that nominate candidates for the MAG. Given that the >Secretariat/Secretary-General seems to have an unstated policy of >privileging nominations made through representative groups like the >IGC over individual nominations, why wouldn't the groups so >privileged nominate those whom they are confident will best >represent the group's collective views rather than a broader "public >interest"? I, for one, am happier to see strong progressive civil >society voices on our MAG slate who can argue robustly against the >interests of governments and the private sector. > >-- >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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 08:06:33 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:06:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <002901c8c54a$9de76ae0$d9b640a0$@net> References: <002401c8c50c$632333f0$29699bd0$@net> <380420.68659.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002901c8c54a$9de76ae0$d9b640a0$@net> Message-ID: Hi, With us here at ASAFE in Cameroon, we are paying 90 000 FCFA (135 Euros) per month for 250 kilo octets of connection. You can rest assured that connection is piece meal here. Irrespective of that, the ISP doesn't skip the day of presenting their bill and strict instructions to respect maturity clause or seing your line disconnected. Aaron On 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Hi > > > > I kind of know what bandwidth (and consumer grade access like dialup / > adsl) costs in Africa. > > > > I simply wanted some African colleagues to cite examples, for Mr.Katz's > information.. he is kind of upset that Comcast is thinking of providing > metered bandwidth (250 gigabytes transfer a month) after offering an > unlimited data plan. > > > > > > *From:* Gao Mosweu [mailto:puna_gb at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Yehuda Katz' > *Subject:* RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > Hello! > > In Botswana (Africa), we pay about 600 Pula (about $100) per month for ADSL > at a speed of 512 kbps... and there are a few pre-requisites like that you > need to have a voice line before you can connect a data line. And the $100 > includes a subscription fee for the voice line as well. > > That said, only a few people can afford it. And Dial up connection is > excruciatingly slow, and probably more costly since you end up spending more > time trying to connect. This essentially means if you really want to be > connected you have to go for ADSL. > > > > Does that help Suresh? > > > > --- On *Tue, 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian * wrote: > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Yehuda Katz'" > Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 2:57 AM > > India, and I pay something like $30 a month for a 8 GB per month 2 Mbit ADSL > > > > You want to ask our colleagues from Africa what they pay, and for what kind of > > connectivity? > > > > srs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:18 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > > > Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. > > > > > > I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA > > > > > > Where are you at? and how much do you pay? > > > for domestic service. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 08:06:11 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:06:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <002901c8c54a$9de76ae0$d9b640a0$@net> References: <002401c8c50c$632333f0$29699bd0$@net> <380420.68659.qm@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002901c8c54a$9de76ae0$d9b640a0$@net> Message-ID: Hi, With us here at ASAFE in Cameroon, we are paying 90 000 FCFA (135 Euros) per month for 250 kilo octets of connection. You can rest assured that connection is piece meal here. Irrespective of that, the ISP doesn't skip the day of presenting their bill and strict instructions to respect maturity clause or seing your line disconnected. Aaron On 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Hi > > > > I kind of know what bandwidth (and consumer grade access like dialup / > adsl) costs in Africa. > > > > I simply wanted some African colleagues to cite examples, for Mr.Katz's > information.. he is kind of upset that Comcast is thinking of providing > metered bandwidth (250 gigabytes transfer a month) after offering an > unlimited data plan. > > > > > > *From:* Gao Mosweu [mailto:puna_gb at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Yehuda Katz' > *Subject:* RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > Hello! > > In Botswana (Africa), we pay about 600 Pula (about $100) per month for ADSL > at a speed of 512 kbps... and there are a few pre-requisites like that you > need to have a voice line before you can connect a data line. And the $100 > includes a subscription fee for the voice line as well. > > That said, only a few people can afford it. And Dial up connection is > excruciatingly slow, and probably more costly since you end up spending more > time trying to connect. This essentially means if you really want to be > connected you have to go for ADSL. > > > > Does that help Suresh? > > > > --- On *Tue, 6/3/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian * wrote: > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Yehuda Katz'" > Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 2:57 AM > > India, and I pay something like $30 a month for a 8 GB per month 2 Mbit ADSL > > > > You want to ask our colleagues from Africa what they pay, and for what kind of > > connectivity? > > > > srs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:18 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > > > Realy? I had no idea that it is the norm in the world already. > > > > > > I just pay a flat rate, like most of the USA > > > > > > Where are you at? and how much do you pay? > > > for domestic service. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 3 11:50:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:50:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080603122007.CF98567923@smtp1.electricembers.net> George I will do nothing much more than to cut-paste the UN's recent press release on MAG's rotation to show that your description of the situation is very one-sided. "Serves in personal' capacity is a part-corrective term over normal UN forums/ meetings where countries and organizations get represented, and anyone can come in on the behalf of these organizations. It doesn't not completely take away the representative, and stakeholder group, basis of MAG selection as is obvious from the statement below. In fact, as pointed out in a discussion on this issue on this list a while back, UN SG's statements have progressively underlined the representative / stakeholder group basis of the MAG membership more and more since its formation. This is precisely to check against the over-simplified implication of the term 'personal capacity' which some people have tried to draw. Thanks. Parminder MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum has been extended. The Special Adviser for Internet Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad, India, on 3 to 6 December. The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within each stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including the academic and technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat. All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. Members need to be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's work. More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum website: www.intgovforum.org . The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005. In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set out the Forum's mandate. The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006 and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007. A stock-taking session in Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of the multi-stakeholder preparatory process. _____ From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:11 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Robert Guerra Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest Milton, When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do not represent any external group. That point has been made repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below was just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a crucial distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting its representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the MAG. I know that it must be frustrating not to be able to draw your own conclusions from direct observation, but it is my opinion that the majority of MAG members, when speaking in MAG meetings, do try to represent a general and public interest, admittedly each through their individual lenses, rather than being explicitly channeled by narrower interests dictated by their background or the organization from which they come. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:53 PM -0400 6/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8C4D1.26A98532" _____ From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC discussions. Robert, I think you have missed the target in this increasingly tiresome discussion. No one - not me, not Parminder, not anyone else - has ever proposed to exclude RIR representatives from our discussions. Indeed, I have urged people here to get involved in RIR policy discussion lists, and vice-versa. No one disputes that RIRs play an important role in global IG, either. As has been said repeatedly, the real issue is: who represents us on the MAG - "us" being the IGC - when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF? Do you want an RIR staff person or an independent voice? Same goes for ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a problem if our "representative" in discussions of ICANN is someone who works for ICANN? No one has ever said that ICANN or an RIR should not be able to participate in the broader discussions of their role in global internet governance. The issue is who represents _us_ in that discussion. As I said earlier, RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs. As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ not to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be accountable to and listen to what the different sectors of society have to say about IG policy. They are welcome on our list, they are welcome in our dialogue. But they are not our representatives. They are representatives of their own memberships. I don't see how anyone can deny this simple observation. IG organizations should not have a dual, contradictory role. And since RIRs are extremely well-resourced organizations that are well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to understand this manufactured complaint about their somehow being excluded and powerless in these dialogues. It is getting a bit silly, is it not? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 3 08:26:25 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:56:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <20080603122007.CF98567923@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080603122007.CF98567923@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <008201c8c575$0c4a98c0$24dfca40$@net> "Personal capacity with extensive linkages to civ soc" doesn't really imply organizational representation of various civ soc groups. And you are still shying away from several widely accepted definitions (such as the LSE one McTim quoted) that would make the RIRs perfectly acceptable as CS. We've had this discussion before. No surprise there. You're repeating your earlier contention. No surprise there either. srs From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Robert Guerra' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest George I will do nothing much more than to cut-paste the UN's recent press release on MAG's rotation to show that your description of the situation is very one-sided. "Serves in personal' capacity is a part-corrective term over normal UN forums/ meetings where countries and organizations get represented, and anyone can come in on the behalf of these organizations. It doesn't not completely take away the representative, and stakeholder group, basis of MAG selection as is obvious from the statement below. In fact, as pointed out in a discussion on this issue on this list a while back, UN SG's statements have progressively underlined the representative / stakeholder group basis of the MAG membership more and more since its formation. This is precisely to check against the over-simplified implication of the term 'personal capacity' which some people have tried to draw. Thanks. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Jun 3 09:14:27 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:14:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 03/06/2008, at 8:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I guess that you believe in confrontation of stakeholders' interests > as a way to make progress. I would rather believe in, and practice, > cooperation in finding acceptable middle grounds. No that's not my position at all, although it is a theory (called agnonism) that some do assume, arguing that consensus is always a mask for oppression and that "a vibrant clash of democratic political positions" is a more authentic form of democratic engagement. Without accepting that at all, I hold that the assumption that the stakeholder groups are equal, either in political and economic power, or in the source of their legitimacy, is as specious as it is fashionable. Without confronting these underlying inequalities, the MAG will simply institutionalise them. I have therefore put forward a model of a consociational bureau for the IGF that would preserve the distinct identities and autonomy of each of the stakeholder groups within the MAG, whilst mediating the power imbalances between them (see pp.294-297, 312, 464-467, 471-474, 478-482 of my book, http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC). -- 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 bkuerbis at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 09:58:00 2008 From: bkuerbis at gmail.com (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:58:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] OECD ministerial background report on Malware In-Reply-To: <48447c66.HbWdHZ4vYdRBn+qb%suresh@hserus.net> References: <48447c66.HbWdHZ4vYdRBn+qb%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <28cfc1a40806030658u3ea9870ew6b247dffdb1d06ee@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for pointing this out Suresh. For those interested in the underlying science upon which much of the Ministerial Report was based, I recommend taking a look at the recently released OECD study, "Economics Of Malware: Security Decisions, Incentives and Externalities", co-authored by IGP Scientific Committee member Michel van Eeten and Johannes Bauer. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/17/40722462.pdf Regards, -- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Recommends a multistakeholder approach, top down / bottom up initiatives .. > > Very well written and comprehensive. > > http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/34/40724457.pdf > > from the intro: > > "In light of the need for a holistic and comprehensive approach to malware > to effectively reduce malicious activity on the Internet, this report > suggests to organising a global Anti-Malware Partnership involving > governments, the private sector, the technical community and civil society > to produce joined-up policy guidance to fight malware on all fronts from > educational to technical to legal and economical." > > A more specific paper (which makes much the same points) - > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolkit-background.pdf > > 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 Tue Jun 3 10:08:37 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:08:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] OECD ministerial background report on Malware In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40806030658u3ea9870ew6b247dffdb1d06ee@mail.gmail.com> References: <48447c66.HbWdHZ4vYdRBn+qb%suresh@hserus.net> <28cfc1a40806030658u3ea9870ew6b247dffdb1d06ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080603140837.GC4717@hserus.net> Yes, I saw an initial draft of that, and some other tu-delft work that preceded this paper. Impressive. Of course, one issue they had (and who doesnt) was that most of the statistics they're forced to rely on are vendor provided. There's almost nothing else usable - barring, say, the MAAWG metrics report available at http://www.maawg.org .. which was started as a consequence of the OECD antispam task force's call for unbiased spam metrics If you are interested in further work on this, there are several papers by, for example, Uni-Mannheim's Thorsten Holz, that should be of interest. srs Brenden Kuerbis [03/06/08 09:58 -0400]: >Thanks for pointing this out Suresh. For those interested in the >underlying science upon which much of the Ministerial Report was >based, I recommend taking a look at the recently released OECD study, >"Economics Of Malware: Security Decisions, Incentives and >Externalities", co-authored by IGP Scientific Committee member Michel >van Eeten and Johannes Bauer. > >http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/17/40722462.pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jun 3 10:49:55 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:49:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <20080603122007.CF98567923@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080603122007.CF98567923@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <33AEDBB3-7BB9-444E-A1EB-A46A33ECFB34@psg.com> On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:50, Parminder wrote: > All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. Personally I always interpreted this sentence to mean that the more linkages to various groups the person had, the better. i.e multistakeholding people for a multistakeholder world. then again who among us, holds stake in only one group? But that might just be my weird way of looking at the future of Multistakeholder Governance. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jun 3 10:52:50 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:52:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 3 Jun 2008, at 15:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I have therefore put forward a model of a consociational bureau for > the IGF that would preserve the distinct identities and autonomy of > each of the stakeholder groups within the MAG, whilst mediating the > power imbalances between them (see pp.294-297, 312, 464-467, > 471-474, 478-482 of my book, http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC) > . btw, is all of this still in a wiki somewhere. or do we all need to go buy your book to understand your arguments? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 3 11:46:47 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:16:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <33AEDBB3-7BB9-444E-A1EB-A46A33ECFB34@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080603154655.41EBCA6C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> > > All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > > have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. > Personally I always interpreted this sentence to mean that the more > linkages to various groups the person had, the better. i.e > multistakeholding people for a multistakeholder world. Ok, I may be doing further hair-splitting but that doesn't look like the intent of the original communication. "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within each stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including the academic and technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat. All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. Members need to be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's work." See the singular in 'group's work'. And the term 'relevant'.... then again who > among us, holds stake in only one group? > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:20 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI > > > On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:50, Parminder wrote: > > > All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > > have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. > > > Personally I always interpreted this sentence to mean that the more > linkages to various groups the person had, the better. i.e > multistakeholding people for a multistakeholder world. then again who > among us, holds stake in only one group? > > But that might just be my weird way of looking at the future of > Multistakeholder Governance. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jun 3 12:03:55 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:03:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <33AEDBB3-7BB9-444E-A1EB-A46A33ECFB34@psg.com> Message-ID: <8A5FB215-8F8F-4C33-A374-413F3ADC451C@psg.com> hi, hermeneutics and exegesis - my favorite indoor sport ! On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:46, Parminder wrote: > > > > > All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > > > have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. > > > Personally I always interpreted this sentence to mean that the more > > linkages to various groups the person had, the better. i.e > > multistakeholding people for a multistakeholder world. > > Ok, I may be doing further hair-splitting but that doesn’t look like > the intent of the original communication. > > "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within > each stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, > representing Governments, private sector and civil society, > including the academic and technical communities will submit names > to the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat. All members serve in > their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages > with relevant stakeholder groups. Members need to be willing to > reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from > interested groups and to participate actively and constructively in > the Group’s work." > > See the singular in 'group's work'. And the term 'relevant'.... > > yes. i believe the Advisory Group is the singular group. i thin the singular/plural distinction that is most explanatory in this is in the previous clause: > Members need to be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow > of information to and from interested groups i.e. the members are expected (again just my personal probably flawed interpretation) to communicate with groups (plural) thus matching the idea that they may have many stakes in the fire and hence contact with many stakeholding groups. and of course the stakeholders need to be relevant and interested. cheers a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 3 12:08:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:38:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <8A5FB215-8F8F-4C33-A374-413F3ADC451C@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080603160908.B694067859@smtp1.electricembers.net> >> See the singular in 'group's work'. And the term 'relevant'.... > > >yes. i believe the Advisory Group is the singular group. You are right, the group mean there is the MAG... Sorry, did think I was hair splitting :). > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:34 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI > > hi, > > hermeneutics and exegesis - my favorite indoor sport ! > > > On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:46, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > All members serve in their personal capacity, but are > expected to > > > > have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups. > > > > > Personally I always interpreted this sentence to mean > that the more > > > linkages to various groups the person had, the better. i.e > > > multistakeholding people for a multistakeholder world. > > > > Ok, I may be doing further hair-splitting but that doesn't > look like > > the intent of the original communication. > > > > "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its > members within > > each stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, > representing > > Governments, private sector and civil society, including > the academic > > and technical communities will submit names to the Internet > Governance > > Forum Secretariat. All members serve in their personal > capacity, but > > are expected to have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder > > groups. Members need to be willing to reach out and ensure > continuous > > flow of information to and from interested groups and to > participate > > actively and constructively in the Group's work." > > > > See the singular in 'group's work'. And the term 'relevant'.... > > > > > > yes. i believe the Advisory Group is the singular group. > > i thin the singular/plural distinction that is most > explanatory in this is in the previous clause: > > > Members need to be willing to reach out and ensure > continuous flow of > > information to and from interested groups > > i.e. the members are expected (again just my personal probably flawed > interpretation) to communicate with groups (plural) thus > matching the idea that they may have many stakes in the fire > and hence contact with many stakeholding groups. > > and of course the stakeholders need to be relevant and interested. > > cheers > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Jun 3 14:40:30 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:40:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAID open consultation in Geneva - 27 May 2008 In-Reply-To: <200806021129.m52BTHSG002096@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200806031840.m53IeJgm026886@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Thanks Renate for your feedback on the GAID KL and Geneva meetings. Just to complete that, find below some points on the GAID Open Consultation which took place in Geneva on 27 May. There were of course as you stressed regrets that this meeting competed with the CSTD review of the UN Secretary General report on WSIS follow-up. There was quite convergence in the comments made by participants, including the following remarks: - GAID focuses: a number of participants stressed that GAID should focus on fewer activities much more concentrated on achieving development goals and on the establishment of development tools. Beyond the outcome of the GAID external evaluation, it was stressed that GAID needed a clearer focus and more streamlined interventions, while reducing the initiatives which have not given any specific result. Sarbuland Khan recognised the need to have GAID looking at ICT4D from the development side. - Mainstreaming ICT in development policies: More follow-up to GAID high level initiatives and meetings would ensure that changes are better achieved in the UN development agenda. Mainstreaming the use of ICTs for development policies would also require that the right development audience be also reached. - Flow of information: Day to day dialogue and interactions among GAID structures members should be strengthened, possibly through virtual online forums, with the view to better contribute to the GAID policy dialogue role on an on going manner. The views of the GAID Strategy Council and Advisors should also be sought more systematically and proactively in the process of planning and organising any event sponsored by GAID. The follow-up process to past meetings is also an important for GAID. A participant mentioned her experience and difficulties in getting in touch with various actors of the GAID architecture (GAID Secretariat, Regional networks in particular). Sarbuland Khan stressed that GAID will work to ensure better communication among and within its members and further streamline the communication procedures. - GAID governance structure: The multiple layers of the GAID governing structures is quite complex, so that people do not know how they relate to it and how they are consulted. The flow of information and of consultation initiated by the Secretariat but also by the Steering Committee towards the Strategy Council Members and the HL Advisors is therefore important and should be made extremely visible. Sarbuland Khan recognised that more time was needed within the GAID Steering Committee and Strategy Council for further discussion on substantive issues. He called constituencies represented in these structures to improve their outreach work towards their partners. The role of the Secretariat is limited in this context to help catalyzing the work done by each constituency for GAID. - GAID policy forum function: GAID did not fully act as a real policy forum while other organisations have demonstrated good lessons from which GAID could learn. GAID should look forward to an annual space for policy forum on ICT4D. - GAID and post WSIS: GAID should also be more integrated in the other layers of the WSIS follow-up and implementation process. This means avoiding conflicts in terms of scheduling and avoiding duplication in terms of issues. The mainstreaming of the global ICT agenda into the UN development agenda should therefore be one of the main priorities of the GAID Secretariat; GAID should in that respect focus on the major UN processes. It should also be further used to develop partnership in its own framework and not only to tag its brand on projects originated somewhere else. Sarbuland Khan noted that GAID should be better articulated with the Action Line process and the follow-up process. Questioned about whether an answer would be provided to the letter signed by 20 members of the GAID structures in the perspective of the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Sarbuland Khan explained that the issues raised in the letter will be circulated and integrated in the work of GAID, but that he was not in the position to personally answer that letter since GAID is all its actors and not the Secretariat alone. On the online platform, Sarbuland Khan informed participants that the GAID online platform is now more powerful and that the desired functionalities have been identified. Finally, Sarbuland Khan informed that by the end of June, there would be a clearer idea of the events which would be organised or co-organised by GAID for the 2008-2009 period. The next step will consist in compiling the views expressed during this open consultation, bring them to the attention of the Chairman and continue the discussion online to identify actions to be taken to overcome them. Best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Renate Bloem Envoyé : lundi 2 juin 2008 13:29 À : CS Plenary; GAID Discussion Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] FW: GAID Kuala Lumpur and open consultation inGeneva Dear all, Sorry for the delay due to too much overlap of meetings, but please find here some notes on the GAID Kuala Lumpur meetings as well as on the Geneva Open Consultation. Kuala Lumpur ‘The UNDESA GAID Annual Meeting, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 18 – 20 May, 2008 aimed to bring together partners to help implement a number of ICT projects of significant, catalysing impact. The Strategy Council and the Steering Committee met in Kuala Lumpur to chart the next steps on the path to reaching GAID’s objectives, and discussed the ways in which they could contribute to the successful implementation of the GAID Business Plan’. This is what we read on the UN-GAID website www.un-gaid.org (and due to technical difficulties still the only accessible message – I, for one, cannot open other headlines). The KL meetings were held in conjunction with the 16th World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT 2008, www.wcit2008.org/ , one of the largest ever) and attracted therefore to the GAID meetings an impressive number of delegates, (some 150[1]) who could freely interact with the WCIT 08 and/or create new business or partnership models. It also allowed GAID to be generously hosted by the Malaysian Government. Strategy Council Morning, 18 May, 9:00-13:00 The Council was opened by the Malaysian Minister Maximus Ongkili, USG Sha Zukang, Intel Chef Craig Barret and ITU SG Dr Touri all expressing strong commitments to the catalyzing role of GAID, its achievements so far, but also emphasizing the need to assess, take stock and where to go from here. This was followed by country presentations from Ministers of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Ghana, Quatar and of course Malaysia allowing their showcasing (or lack of) of positive ICT developments. Interesting in this respect the contrasting tales of Ghana and Malaysia (same year independence, 1975, from British colonialism, start with same GDP, today wide gap in earning power, mainly because of political instabilities in the African context, not such an enabling environment) Some other initiatives were presented, -notably the World Summit Award, motivating young people to use ICT for MDG issues-, before returning to the discussion of the vision and future of UNDESA-GAID. Some countries, Finland and Switzerland, stressed the need for more focus and for doing less with more coherence. WHO wanted more profile, more multi-stakeholder and multi- sectoral support for health centres. I asked for better communication, transparency and flow and linkages between events and their outcomesI then read the sign-on statement which I had distributed to some key participants, (attached) Response was positive, particular from Sha Zukang and Sarbuland who had asked for feedback after GAID two years in existence. But there was not enough time for in-depth discussion. Sarbuland sees GAID as Intersection between follow up to the 2005 NY Summit and the Tunis Summit, to help speed up the attainment of the MDGs. GAID’s convening power, branding, sharing and scaling up of good practices were noted as positives. Questions turned more to the role than the tiers structure of GAID and to more focus and less duplication. This was repeatedly stressed. The Syracuse/Mathiason evaluation was mentioned and some of its critical recommendations endorsed. Some of the developing countries asked for more concrete steps to meet rural area needs (Madagaskar e.g. 80% rural) Al Shatty from Kuwait asked for more support for regional networks. Craig Barrett closed the morning with: “Small deeds done are better than great deeds planned”. Strategy Council Afternoon, 18 May 14:00-16:00 The afternoon session heard more than seven presentations of new initiatives, including on Indigenous Peoples’ Appropriating Knowledge Society (IPAKS) and Wireless for Development (W4D), IT4All Network of Local Authorities, e-Leaders of Youth for ICT and Development, Adopt A Village and GAID Advisory Service Initiative and others. Papers on these initiatives were circulated too shortly before the meeting, and there was not much time to discuss any of them, less so giving recommendations to the Steering Committee to guide them in decisions A background note for Vision for the Future of UNDESA-GAID with relevant questions had also been circulated Steering Committee, 18 May, 16:00-18:30 The Steering Committee heard more introductory statements from Craig Barrett, Sha Zukang and Dr. Touri, the latter this time quite strongly pointing to ITU’s leading role in some of the recorded GAID ‘initiatives’. Craig pointed out, so much goes on ‘out there’ anyway that GAID with its limited capacities in human and financial resources can only concentrate on basics. I heard a little bit: Let the markets do and pointed to GAIDs role to focusing on those most in need.. But we all consented in the end to concentrate on four basic areas, in which added value with better coordination would be brought forward. We need also more space for policy discussion and open consultations. We were then video linked with Professor John Mathiason, Syracuse University, who presented his evaluation report. For the discussion, unfortunately, the link was interrupted. A thank was given to the effort and some of its recommendations but the question was raised: why did we have this external evaluation instead of a peer review? The evaluation screened the 15 GAID meetings and events, but did not evaluate GAID vis-`-vis its own set Principles. Sarbuland pointed to the agreement of the Steering Committee to the Syracuse procedure and that this evaluation was any way the first step in an evaluation process. He also invited to the upcoming open Consultation in Geneva. The Steering Committee concluded in reiterating the four basic principles: access, connectivity, content and (ICT) education and to approach them in a matrix manner through policy discussion, advocacy and good practices. Further discussion and decisions on the new initiatives are to be taken on-line and at a later date. The atmosphere in the Steering Committee was for the first time less ceremonial – although sometimes heated- more open, interactive, and collegial. GAID Global Forum (19-20 May) on Access and Connectivity and Innovative Funding For ICT For Development for Asia Pacific Developing Countries and Small Island States. I will leave to Colleagues and the Secretariat the reporting on this Global Forum. I only want to note the strong and effective presence of the Youth Committee, and the very laudable methodology throughout the Global Forum of the Roundtable/Panel discussions: Speakers (never too many) responding to good moderators and enough time for interaction with the audience. Personally I appreciated the experience to meet with great business/social entrepreneurs. Geneva Open Consultations: 27 May 2008 Following online discussions for a GAID Open Consultation and my suggestion to Sarbuland to hold such a meeting in conjunction with the Geneva ALFs or CSTD, it was decided to hold the open consultation following Kuala Lumpur on 27 May, parallel to some of the CSTD meetings. Unfortunately, it coincided with a WSIS-follow-up discussion at the CSTD and was held for the purpose of remote participation, offered by the ITU, at the ITU premises when all other discussions took place in the Palais des Nations, thus limiting participation. Nevertheless, some 20-25 stakeholders from all categories attended the meeting. One of the criticisms therefore related to overlap of meetings, (this also with regard to the KL meetings) and lack of good planning with regard to the Geneva May clusters. However, the free and open space which was provided through this consultation which allowed putting all concerns on the table, will hopefully chart a new and inclusive way forward. For more info turn to the webcast http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/200805cluster/index.html Thanks and best for tonight, Renate Bloem _____ _____ _____ _____ [1] Steering Committee=17; Strategy Council= 25 Governments, 6 Private Sector, 10 Civil Society, 11 IGOs, High-level Advisors = 13, Champions = 5; Other participants = 57 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary GAID Open Consultation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 3 15:24:05 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:24:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > . It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not > appointed to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to > represent (in a broad sense) their stakeholder groups. Were > this not > the case, there would be no point in ensuring balance between > stakeholders at all. The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which > the best qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of > stakeholder balance. But in fact the distinct values and > interests of > the governmental, private sector and civil society > representatives are > central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too). Thanks to Jeremy for saving me the trouble of a long reply. I did not want to directly disagree with George, because he is right about the formal statement in the MAG charter. But in reality, what Jeremy says nails the truth; it simply cannot be refuted. Indeed, we have just gone through an insistence that Govertnments qua governments will get half the MAG. What can explain this if not the attribution of some kind of categorical representational quality to the government members of the MAG, and the use of that representation to make a statement about which sector has more power and clout in the UN? The difficult and troublesome fact is that multistakeholderism is messy in this regard. It establishes sectoral categories and seems to call for balanced representation of those categories, but since there is no institutional process for representing those categories it offers the pretence that the people we select are just "individuals acting on their own behalf." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 3 15:41:29 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:41:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Jeremy, > > I guess that you believe in confrontation of stakeholders' interests > as a way to make progress. I would rather believe in, and practice, > cooperation in finding acceptable middle grounds. > George This borders on an unfair comment. Both cooperation AND confrontation may be required, it depends on what happens. E.g., if governments or business ignore civil society perspectives & try to trample rights or exploit unrepresented interests, confrontation may be appropriate. Likewise, although reasonable people will always look for a win-win, if civil society makes unreasonable demands of business, it may conflict rather than cooperate. The point is, the whole notions of "cooperation" and "confrontation" require differentiated parties. Civil society cannot "cooperate" properly with business and government unless its participants are reasonably representative of their sector (nonprofit) and looking out for its interests. Who decides what is "acceptable middle ground", and for whom is this decided? Acceptable to whom? These are politically negotiated questions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 15:44:27 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:44:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: It is correct that there is a tension between stakeholder groups for the ability to appoint members to the MAG. This is conceptually different than appointing representation, although in the worst case (my worst case, not Jeremy's) amounts to the same thing. However, I want to repeat what I wrote earlier: in the majority of cases, regardless of who appointed the member, the members speak more in the general public interest rather than in line with the generally narrower interests of those who appointed them. This IMHO is a fortunate happenstance and certainly was not guaranteed by any part of the process. Unfortunately, some members do tend to represent narrower interests consistent with their background, and again IMHO, this does not help the work of the MAG. George At 3:24 PM -0400 6/3/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> . It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not >> appointed to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to >> represent (in a broad sense) their stakeholder groups. Were >> this not >> the case, there would be no point in ensuring balance between >> stakeholders at all. The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which >> the best qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of >> stakeholder balance. But in fact the distinct values and >> interests of >> the governmental, private sector and civil society >> representatives are >> central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too). > >Thanks to Jeremy for saving me the trouble of a long reply. I did not >want to directly disagree with George, because he is right about the >formal statement in the MAG charter. But in reality, what Jeremy says >nails the truth; it simply cannot be refuted. Indeed, we have just gone >through an insistence that Govertnments qua governments will get half >the MAG. What can explain this if not the attribution of some kind of >categorical representational quality to the government members of the >MAG, and the use of that representation to make a statement about which >sector has more power and clout in the UN? > >The difficult and troublesome fact is that multistakeholderism is messy >in this regard. It establishes sectoral categories and seems to call for >balanced representation of those categories, but since there is no >institutional process for representing those categories it offers the >pretence that the people we select are just "individuals acting on their >own behalf." > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jun 3 16:01:30 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:01:30 -0400 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do Message-ID: Hi, Following on from Brenden and Jeremy's notes, first to be clear I do not wish to disparage anyone's efforts to build the virtual presence of the IGF. Also to be fair to the UN and IGF secretariat, I suspect it's not that they are unwilling, they just do not have resources/a funding stream allocated for these purposes. Say, maybe ICANN, Google, a foundation or two and/or the RIR's could throw some money in a pot and help move the IGF from the theory of global virtual community towards a more multilingual and dynamic reality? Or IGF could start soliciting small individual donations online a la the Obama campaign. For example, I threw $250 in a pot to help ICANN get started a decade ago, and I didn;t even get a free t-shirt : ) Point is, we know everyone is presently doing the best they can, but if IGF is going to merit its life extending beyond 5 years, it needs to really embrace its multistakeholder nature and suck up resources/time/talent, and yeah cash, from all available corners of the nascent virtual community, to build that community. The first step is to acknowledge a UN business as usual approach will not get IGF there, ever. I guess Brenden, Jeremy, the dynamic coalition, working group etc are working on suggestions for next steps, and I encourage them all to think both short term and medium term what could be done, at low cost since IGF resources will always be limited. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 06/02/08 9:18 PM >>> On 03/06/2008, at 2:09 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > It does, as best it can with the meager resources it has, but IMO it's > in the wrong format. One way to make it more useful would be to > utilize RSS more. The Secretariat advertises a feed on the home page > (http://intgovforum.org/igf_rss_feed.xml), but the last entry is > December 8, 2007. Is there another feed(s) that isn't broken? No there isn't a non-broken official feed. There is a meta-feed of unofficial IGF-related resources at http://igf-online.net/gregarius that aspires to completeness, but could do with more source feeds. > E.g., it sure would be nice to have an IGF events feed > so I could create a widget that could be placed on someone's blog or > website. Or it sure would be great if I had an IGF transcript feed so > I could easily create audio files for podcasting. Exactly, and even if these were not provided in RSS format, it would be sufficient that they were provided in some other open format such as a Web service that others could repurpose in the manner you describe. (Brenden, please consider contributing to the early draft requirements document at http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community , which I think you will find to be on your wavelength.) I won't forward my off-list conversation with Chengetai Masango without permission, but the problem we run into is the Secretariat is willing to devote no resources to this. The Rio meeting, for those privileged enough to make it, came with a seven-figure price tag, but for the majority of Internet users who cannot make it out of their home country, any investment above $0 is too much to justify. -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 16:34:03 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:34:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, it is not an unfair comment, and it wasn't meant to be pejorative. Some decision processes are characterized by confrontation; witness the American election system for public officials. I'm saying that I think that one does better to start on the cooperative side, assuming that the goals of the parties are not too diametrically opposed. BTW, I don't equate 'push back' with confrontation, and I don't equate acquiescence with cooperation. George At 3:41 PM -0400 6/3/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> >> Jeremy, >> >> I guess that you believe in confrontation of stakeholders' interests >> as a way to make progress. I would rather believe in, and practice, >> cooperation in finding acceptable middle grounds. >> > >George >This borders on an unfair comment. Both cooperation AND confrontation >may be required, it depends on what happens. E.g., if governments or >business ignore civil society perspectives & try to trample rights or >exploit unrepresented interests, confrontation may be appropriate. >Likewise, although reasonable people will always look for a win-win, if >civil society makes unreasonable demands of business, it may conflict >rather than cooperate. > >The point is, the whole notions of "cooperation" and "confrontation" >require differentiated parties. Civil society cannot "cooperate" >properly with business and government unless its participants are >reasonably representative of their sector (nonprofit) and looking out >for its interests. > >Who decides what is "acceptable middle ground", and for whom is this >decided? Acceptable to whom? These are politically negotiated questions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 3 21:31:30 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:31:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4845F072.9040108@cavebear.com> George Sadowsky wrote: > it is not an unfair comment, and it wasn't meant to be pejorative. Some > decision processes are characterized by confrontation; witness the > American election system for public officials. I'm saying that I think > that one does better to start on the cooperative side, assuming that the > goals of the parties are not too diametrically opposed. On might read our historical experience over the last few hundred years as indicating that those structures of governance that survive and work are those based on a presumption that there will be strong advocacy, manipulation, confrontation, misrepresentation, deception, underhanded dealing, withholding of information, personal and institutional ambition - pretty much everything except transient events of cooperation (which themselves may often be merely short term tactical moves to gain an advantage.) Internet governance will deal with matters that involve not merely prodigious amounts of money but also with deep cultural values - in other words the kind of pressurized, temptation filled cauldron that brings out the worst rather than the best of human nature. I'd suggest that when building institutions of governance it is safer to bet on Machiavelli than on Valentine Michael Smith (from Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land.") --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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Jun 3 21:38:30 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:38:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net> <20080602105228.45E26E04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01aa01c8c4a1$f59cc590$e0d650b0$@net> <20080602124258.GA29971@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7506@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 03/06/2008, at 10:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I have therefore put forward a model of a consociational bureau for >> the IGF that would preserve the distinct identities and autonomy of >> each of the stakeholder groups within the MAG, whilst mediating the >> power imbalances between them (see pp.294-297, 312, 464-467, >> 471-474, 478-482 of my book, http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC) >> . > > btw, is all of this still in a wiki somewhere. or do we all need to > go buy your book to understand your arguments? Yes it's still online and linked from the book's Web site, though the book is a bit different and has some new material. If you're looking for short and concise though, the bare bones of the consociation argument were in something I wrote for CircleID last year at http://www.circleid.com/posts/79219_consociational_bureau_internet_governance/ . I have also promised Milton I will write a longer and broader article based on Chapter 6, when I can fit it in between other commitments (I'm taking the New York bar exam next month to fill in time while looking for my next job). I should also submit something for GIGANET, but probably not on quite the same topic (probably on space law and IG, believe it or not). -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 05:35:03 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:35:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <20080603154655.41EBCA6C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <33AEDBB3-7BB9-444E-A1EB-A46A33ECFB34@psg.com> <20080603154655.41EBCA6C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > Ok, I may be doing further hair-splitting but that doesn't look like the > intent of the original communication. > > > > "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within each > stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, representing > Governments, private sector and civil society, including the academic and > technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance Forum > Secretariat." It seems to me, that part of the intent of the original communication is to lump academia and technical community folks in with CS. I wonder if anyone can speak as to the Secretariat's thoughts in this regard. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 06:10:43 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:10:43 +0300 Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Following on from Brenden and Jeremy's notes, first to be clear I do not > wish to disparage anyone's efforts to build the virtual presence of the > IGF. Also to be fair to the UN and IGF secretariat, I suspect it's not > that they are unwilling, they just do not have resources/a funding > stream allocated for these purposes. > > Say, maybe ICANN, Google, a foundation or two and/or the RIR's I doubt the RIRs are that well off, and would probably have to put this into their respective activity plans for approval by their members. What would be far easier is if they donated knowledge/staff time and perhaps lent some kit. At the moment, I am listening to the AfriNIC meeting via http://streaming.afrinic.net:8000/afstars.mp3 it's "costing" me ~32k, and is flawless. I can join in the chat, as I know what's being discussed (because of the audio). After 3 years, the IGF should be able to do this as well. -- 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 avri at psg.com Wed Jun 4 07:21:27 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:21:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <33AEDBB3-7BB9-444E-A1EB-A46A33ECFB34@psg.com> <20080603154655.41EBCA6C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> On 4 Jun 2008, at 11:35, McTim wrote: >> >> >> "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members >> within each >> stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, representing >> Governments, private sector and civil society, including the >> academic and >> technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance >> Forum >> Secretariat." > > It seems to me, that part of the intent of the original communication > is to lump academia and technical > community folks in with CS. I wonder if anyone can > speak as to the Secretariat's thoughts in this regard. it is not the IGF Secretariat but the UN Secretary General. and I don't think there is anyone outside his office who can speak to his thoughts on that. just my opinion, of course. also just my opinion, but the Tunis Agenda makes that distinction. and in my view describes a matrix, with 3 stakeholder groups in one dimension and 2 named groups striped across those stakeholder groups as cross cutting influences in the other dimension. if one stops to think there are probably other cross-cutting groups that were not explicitly mentioned, but implicitly by this being the UN and everyone believing in the importance of diversity, like ; gender groups, regional groups, disability groups, religious groups ... 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 abi.jagun at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 08:16:28 2008 From: abi.jagun at gmail.com (Abi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:16:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi With regards to the cost of access in Africa, APC recently published findings of a study on connectivity and access in 4 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (which also have access to the SAT3 cable). The study shows how international bandwidth capacity has increased in all the countries studied and what impact this is having on the cost of international bandwidth (both on SAT3 and satellite), internet access to consumers, and also cost of international calls. A briefing paper and the case country reports are available for download at http://www.apc.org/en/node/6142/ Abi > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:06:33 +0200 > From: "Nyangkwe Agien Aaron" > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Hi, > > With us here at ASAFE in Cameroon, we are paying 90 000 FCFA (135 Euros) per > month for 250 kilo octets of connection. You can rest assured that > connection is piece meal here. Irrespective of that, the ISP doesn't skip > the day of presenting their bill and strict instructions to respect maturity > clause or seing your line disconnected. > > Aaron > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From babatope at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 10:01:01 2008 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:01:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider. An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no effective outlet to address this. Best Regards, On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Abi wrote: > Hi > > With regards to the cost of access in Africa, APC recently published > findings of a study on connectivity and access in 4 countries in > sub-Saharan Africa (which also have access to the SAT3 cable). > > The study shows how international bandwidth capacity has increased in > all the countries studied and what impact this is having on the cost > of international bandwidth (both on SAT3 and satellite), internet > access to consumers, and also cost of international calls. > > A briefing paper and the case country reports are available for > download at http://www.apc.org/en/node/6142/ > > > Abi > > > > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:06:33 +0200 > > From: "Nyangkwe Agien Aaron" > > Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > Hi, > > > > With us here at ASAFE in Cameroon, we are paying 90 000 FCFA (135 Euros) > per > > month for 250 kilo octets of connection. You can rest assured that > > connection is piece meal here. Irrespective of that, the ISP doesn't skip > > the day of presenting their bill and strict instructions to respect > maturity > > clause or seing your line disconnected. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 'Tope Soremi Nigerian Youth ICT4D Network (www.nyinetwork.org) | Foundation Nigerianet (www.nigerianet.org) | Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (www.pin.org.ng) | Nigeria Anti-Scam network (www.cybercrime.org.ng, www.treasure.org.ng) | Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 4 10:55:23 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:55:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the general public. * Last mile unbundling * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF. And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international level. At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help local ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done. suresh Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]: >Hi all, > >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider. > >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no >effective outlet to address this. > >Best Regards, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 4 13:15:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:45:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> > > also just my opinion, but the Tunis Agenda makes that distinction. > and in my view describes a matrix, with 3 stakeholder groups in one > dimension and 2 named groups striped across those stakeholder groups > as cross cutting influences in the other dimension. Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and not organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. I keep hoping someday one will make the distinction clear, and all/most people will accept the distinction... we can not all agree on viewpoints, but some general agreement on key terms that keep coming up in our discussions is necessary. Ok, I will feed a little more into this debate there never seems to go anywhere.. I am told that these IABs (provisional term, Internet admin bodies) are really communities and not organizations in the traditional governance organizations sense. That's problematic because every democracy claims that it is the people who rule etc etc... but still we have the distinctions of governance institutions, civil society bodies, communities, people etc. Ok, even if we were to accept the fiction that in IABs power is really divided equally and the democratic utopia has been reached, the 'community' must include everyone on whom the policies of IABs impinge... for instance on me as an internet user. I am likely to be told, as indeed I am often by McTim especially, that anyone can really participate on equal terms with equal power (for instance, equal to those of ICANN's CEO) in these communal policy making processes... Ok, provisionally, even if we were to accept this proposition, and I did try and participate in these policy making processes, do I then become a part of the 'technical community'. But excuse me, can I just not be called that. Because I cant see myself as 'technical' - due of course entirely to my own shortcomings. I really have difficulty managing the most basic applications on my laptop, and am quite poor in technical subjects as numerous postings on this list keep reminding me. But do I have to accept the tag of 'technical community' to be part of this policy making structure.... I think there is a serious problem there, and more than some degree of violence to normal language and usage of terms, if someone does insist that I must accept to be 'technical community' whether I know anything technical' or not, if I have to participate... Ok, I will go even with this. And accept that I - as having a right to participate in this bottom policy process - am a part of the technical community. But then doesn't everyone have a right to so participate (because Internet polices implicate everyone, users and non-users). Then everyone is 'technical community'. That's getting interesting. So, IABs are really communities, and everyone a member of these, and in this very special communities power is really shared equally among all (which is why no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more powerful than others in IABs, and thus likely to be especially accountable), then why do IABs need any special representation in the MAG at all. Everyone on MAG is technical community by default, since, if this is needed as a criterion, by agreeing to be on the MAG he/she has indicated interest in IG issues... Or is it some special expertise and/or certain 'positions' in technical community that we are talking about here. If IABs can really let us know that they really want no representation by any special reps or position holders of theirs on MAG, and after all they are but a community of all people as equals, sure, CS would have little difficulty in obliterating all differences in its mind and nominating anyone to the MAG... But this is contrary to what we all know. IABs have been extra-ordinarily anxious to get its reps on the MAG. Sorry, for this long posting. But I really don't understand this whole thing about technical community. What really is it? And believe me, I am not alone in this bewilderment. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:51 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI > > > On 4 Jun 2008, at 11:35, McTim wrote: > >> > >> > >> "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members > >> within each > >> stakeholder group. All relevant stakeholder groups, representing > >> Governments, private sector and civil society, including the > >> academic and > >> technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance > >> Forum > >> Secretariat." > > > > > It seems to me, that part of the intent of the original communication > > is to lump academia and technical > > community folks in with CS. I wonder if anyone can > > speak as to the Secretariat's thoughts in this regard. > > it is not the IGF Secretariat but the UN Secretary General. and I > don't think there is anyone outside his office who can speak to his > thoughts on that. > > just my opinion, of course. > > also just my opinion, but the Tunis Agenda makes that distinction. > and in my view describes a matrix, with 3 stakeholder groups in one > dimension and 2 named groups striped across those stakeholder groups > as cross cutting influences in the other dimension. if one stops to > think there are probably other cross-cutting groups that were not > explicitly mentioned, but implicitly by this being the UN and everyone > believing in the importance of diversity, like ; gender groups, > regional groups, disability groups, religious groups ... > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 4 13:18:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:48:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080604171848.07ADDA6CDC@smtp2.electricembers.net> > That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the > general public. > > * Last mile unbundling > > * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > > * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players > > * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs > (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) > > * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources > (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) > > I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and > depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. > It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus, actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue last year) since these are not real IG issues, and claim that ICTs/ Internet for development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of people from the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG. If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these people on the MAG and in IGF at all. And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we not need more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' expertise we should be trying to get into MAG, right. I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real governance and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in the MAG. I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:25 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Babatope Soremi > Cc: Abi > Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the > general public. > > * Last mile unbundling > > * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > > * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players > > * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs > (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) > > * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources > (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) > > I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and > depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. > > I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF. > And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international > level. At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help local > ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done. > > suresh > > Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]: > >Hi all, > > > >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of > >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider. > > > >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of > >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no > >effective outlet to address this. > > > >Best Regards, > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 4 13:43:29 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:43:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <20080604171848.07ADDA6CDC@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> <20080604171848.07ADDA6CDC@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Parminder wrote: > It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to > any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus, > actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue last > year) since these are not real IG issues No one has claimed this AFAIK. IIRC, the issue is that there are fora already dedicated to these issues, so trying to do it all again in the IGF is a duplication of effort, and since the IGF is a only a "discussion" forum, it would be a waste of energy. , and claim that ICTs/ Internet for > development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of people from > the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG. Well, connecting the next billion is a much more laudable goal than bitching about ICANN IMHO. > > If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these people > on the MAG and in IGF at all. > > And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we not need > more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' expertise > we should be trying to get into MAG, right. > > I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real governance > and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in the MAG. > I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox. > a paradox that you have invented, based on non-existing data. This is, seemingly just another red herring that takes the focus off our processes. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 18:48:49 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:48:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Parminder wrote: > > >> > > Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and not > organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. ummm, well I have known the the term "technical community" AS the organizations that do Internet administration/ governance AND all those who partake in the technical or administrative coordination of internetworks. This term has been in use in this way for over a decade. I think you are over-reaching if you think you can redefine this term, but good luck with it if you insist on trying. > > I keep hoping someday one will make the distinction clear, and all/most > people will accept the distinction... we can not all agree on viewpoints, > but some general agreement on key terms that keep coming up in our > discussions is necessary. How's this for clarity; There is NO distinction. The term is used for people and organisations where those people interact. We can't even define ourselves, I think that if you want to define a group that you deny is "us", then first, ask yourself, would you accept "them" defining "us'?? > > Ok, I will feed a little more into this debate there never seems to go > anywhere.. > > I am told that these IABs (provisional term, Internet admin bodies) are > really communities and not organizations in the traditional governance > organizations sense. That's problematic because every democracy claims that > it is the people who rule etc etc... but still we have the distinctions of > governance institutions, civil society bodies, communities, people etc. > > Ok, even if we were to accept the fiction that in IABs power is really > divided equally and the democratic utopia has been reached, A) it's not a fiction, I lived it today (remotely). B) no one said it was a utopia, it's just MUCH better than anything WSIS or the IGF has done in terms of openness/tranparency/remote participation, etc, etc. the 'community' > must include everyone on whom the policies of IABs impinge... for instance nope, you've assumed that the community of Internet Users is the same as the Internet technical community. There are those users who are interested and engaged in technical/administrative matters and those who are not. It is NOT the same set of people. Now, POTENTIALLY, they are the same set (all users can have a seat at the table), but realistically, if I can't get this Caucus more involved after several years of trying, well I have my doubts that "grandmas with ADSL modems" will likely be interested, YMMV. > on me as an internet user. I am likely to be told, as indeed I am often by > McTim especially, that anyone can really participate on equal terms with > equal power (for instance, equal to those of ICANN's CEO) in these communal > policy making processes... I see the herrings getting redder and redder, but since I like "Dutch sushi", I'll bite. Since I have NEVER seen an ICANN CEO participate in the communal policy making processes that I participated in today (numbering policy discussions), I'd say they don't exercise "power" in the bottom up discussions. So in that sense, the folk at the botttom have more say than he/she does in this regard. > > Ok, provisionally, even if we were to accept this proposition, and I did try > and participate in these policy making processes, do I then become a part of > the 'technical community'. "technically" yes. :-) But excuse me, can I just not be called that. > Because I cant see myself as 'technical' - due of course entirely to my own > shortcomings. I really have difficulty managing the most basic applications > on my laptop, and am quite poor in technical subjects as numerous postings > on this list keep reminding me. You don't have to accept any tag that you don't want, and many non-technical folk participate, as we are talking about ADMINISTRATION of technical resources. But do I have to accept the tag of > 'technical community' to be part of this policy making structure.... I think > there is a serious problem there, and more than some degree of violence to > normal language and usage of terms, if someone does insist that I must > accept to be 'technical community' whether I know anything > technical' or not, if I have to participate... You don't have to know anything in particular (but it would be helpful to know a few terms, which I have already seen you use on this list), and no one is going to force you to accept a label, not to worry. > > Ok, I will go even with this. And accept that I - as having a right to > participate in this bottom policy process - am a part of the technical > community. But then doesn't everyone have a right to so participate (because > Internet polices implicate everyone, users and non-users). No one has ever been excluded from the discussions that I participate in (except for a few trolls that violate AUPs, like the one we have on this list). Then everyone is > 'technical community'. if they participate, and want the tag then yes, if they don't then no. Not everyome does, of course, so the above assertion is incorrect. >That's getting interesting. > > So, IABs are really communities, IABs are organisations, these organisations support (and take their marching orders from their communities). It's not rocket science, I can't see how this is difficult to grasp after so many explanations. Try looking at these 2 pages in light of the above, I think it will be clear what i am getting at. Community: http://ripe.net/ripe/index.html Organisation: http://ripe.net/index.html > and everyone a member of these, no, everyone CAN be, but like you, they are not for a variety of reasons. and in this > very special communities power is really shared equally among all yes (which is > why no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more powerful > than others in IABs how does this follow from the above? AFAIK, No one has argued that "no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more powerful than others in IABs" the IAB, as you call them ARE organisations, non-profit, Civil Society organisations that take their orders from their members (about how the org is run) AND their communities (who set the policies, if they are policy making communities). , and thus likely to be especially accountable), then why > do IABs need any special representation in the MAG at all. Everyone on MAG > is technical community by default, since, if this is needed as a criterion, Now I'm really lost, this is perhaps (intentionally?) the most confusing mail I've ever read from you. What criterion does the article "this" refer to in the above sentence? > by agreeing to be on the MAG he/she has indicated interest in IG issues... the above phrase is the first thing that has made sense. > If IABs can really let us know that they really want no representation by > any special reps or position holders of theirs on MAG, and after all they > are but a community of all people as equals, sure, CS would have little > difficulty in obliterating all differences in its mind and nominating anyone > to the MAG... But this is contrary to what we all know. yes, we know they were treated shabbily by CS in the run up to WSIS and they went off on their own. Now, some in CS are in the position of saying "no 4th SH group, AND no, those people aren't CS either" IABs have been > extra-ordinarily anxious to get its reps on the MAG. > > Sorry, for this long posting. But I really don't understand this whole thing > about technical community. What really is it? And believe me, I am not alone > in this bewilderment. > Perhaps you would be better off listening to (and counting, which IIUC is part of the task you volunteered for) the people who have come out against exclusion of certain parts of CS (including those on this list), in violation of our charter. It really is a terribly Un-CS thing to do, and I hear more voices AGAINST such exclusion than I hear FOR 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Jun 4 20:34:23 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> References: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> Message-ID: All, Let me add to the excellent list that Suresh started, the following: - Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet transactions, both national an international - Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with general business licensing processes at the national level - Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based pricing of Internet access - A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs on the other hand - Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections - Issues of filtering content at the national level - Permissive policies for anonymous communication - Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for protecting confidentiality of communication - Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP - Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities through training and facilities the ability to identify, prosecute and convict spammers These are issues that by an large unite civil society, the Internet community, and the business community. They are issues of policy that can be addressed in parallel in all countries of the world, and the goal of addressing them is to make the Internet available, accessible, affordable, useful and more secure than would otherwise be the case. IMHO these are the kinds of issues that not only should be discussed here, but are directly actionable at the national level. Are members of this group mobilizing action in these directions; if not, is there interest in doing so? Or is it just easier to talk on-line about issues at the international level that have little if any connection with the real individual user experience in, say, developing countries? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 7:55 AM -0700 6/4/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the >general public. > >* Last mile unbundling > >* Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > >* Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players > >* Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs > (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) > >* Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources > (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) > >I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and >depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. > >I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF. >And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international >level. At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help local >ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done. > > suresh > >Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]: >>Hi all, >> >>Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of >>service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider. >> >>An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of >>service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no >>effective outlet to address this. >> >>Best Regards, -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central: +1.202.370.7734 SKYPE: sadowsky ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 4 21:12:21 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:12:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080605011221.GB404@hserus.net> Parminder [04/06/08 22:45 +0530]: >I keep hoping someday one will make the distinction clear, and all/most >people will accept the distinction... we can not all agree on viewpoints, I keep hoping against hope you will stop drawing such artificial distinctions >Ok, even if we were to accept the fiction that in IABs power is really Wrong, it is fact. Have you even been to an RIR meeting? Or an IETF event? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 4 21:14:48 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:14:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking Message-ID: <20080605011448.GC404@hserus.net> Parminder [04/06/08 22:48 +0530]: >It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to >any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus, >actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue last There's a difference, but not one I expect you to ever understand, between 1. Discussing something 2. Having the sort of unhealthy obsession with it that you do As i said, you claim to be "IT for change". Do you by any chance happen to back those grand words with action? Or do you simply plan to run political campaigns like this, in which case you might want to change your org's name to politics for control or something similar? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 4 21:42:31 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:42:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: References: <20080604145523.GE20472@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080605014231.GA719@hserus.net> George Sadowsky [04/06/08 20:34 -0400]: > - Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with general > business licensing processes at the national level > - Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based pricing > of Internet access > - A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international > Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs on the > other hand Members of a list that I help moderate - india-gii - do a lot of this. http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii > - Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for protecting > confidentiality of communication > - Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP These too.. at least something is in the works about the indian government's move to try get blackberry to turn over its keys or restrict them to 40 bit or lower. (google news should turn up something) > - Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and vigorous > prosecution, including enabling national authorities through training > and facilities the ability to identify, prosecute and convict spammers Ah, finally something after my own heart. I've done quite a lot of this over the last 10 years - and done some technical and policy work on this too at various levels (http://www.apcauce.org has some of it) I had quite a lot of hopes for the stopspamalliance.org dynamic coalition but it needs some restarting. A lot of work is going on in MAAWG (www.maawg.org) right now - though that's an industry and technical community group rather than a more broadly civil society group. [maawg, cauce and isoc are associate members - and various international and/or multistakeholder orgs - ITU, OECD and the multistakeholder LAP - are members] - http://stopspamalliance.org/?page_id=28 srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 02:23:15 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:23:15 +0300 Subject: Markus to address AfriNIC today (was Re:Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do Message-ID: "IGF Update" by Markus scheduled at; Morocco 0945-1015 United Kingdom 0945-1015 India 1415-1445 Uganda 1100-1130 Japan 1700-1745 another example of EC. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 05:43:07 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:13:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking In-Reply-To: <003201c8c6ef$9ae32540$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> References: <20080604171848.07ADDA6CDC@smtp2.electricembers.net> <003201c8c6ef$9ae32540$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Message-ID: <001d01c8c6f0$91020ae0$b30620a0$@net> I would say, monsieur, that a large number of people who qualify as "technical community" (persons and organizations both) are quite active in ict4d issues as well? * RIRs doing capacity building and training sessions for ISPs and network administrators * Several organizations such as UOregon's NSRC and PCH that provide computing resources and connectivity to disadvantaged areas. For example, last year's winner of the Ramon Magsaysay award, Mahabir Pun, who works to provide connectivity to mountainous and far flung areas of rural Nepal, was a very popular speaker at a recent SANOG meeting, and several people and organizations from the technical community combined to provide assistance in equipment and expertise to help him achieve his goals. Traditional civil society groups - even those engaged to a large extent in ICT4D, may not have adequate capacity in these issues, as you have correctly observed, without active involvement of the technical community .. which, it is a pity, gets disparaged to such a large extent by the same people who would benefit most from it. Srs > -----Original Message----- > From: jlfullsack [mailto:jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:06 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; > 'Babatope Soremi' > Cc: 'Abi' > Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > Dear Parminder > > I fully support your opinion on Internet for development/developing > countries being one issue among others of Internet governance. This was > also > expressed in a lot of CS statements all along the second phase of WSIS. > Therefore I also fully agree your statement that experts in development > should be members of the MAG as to complement the experts in the > technology > domain. Moreover, there may be some CS people -mainly from NGOs that > are > active in the ICT/Internet domain in DCs and partnering with their > local/national equivalents- who are are best aware of the cross-cutting > issues, and should be therefore encouraged for representing the CS in > such a > body. > Conversely, only a strong presence of 'developing experts' in this body > will > be able to balance the 'technology experts' (and the private sector > representatives) in its ruling and decison taking process. > Btw : The Action Lines facilitating meetings held in Geneva during one > week > in may, have shown (particularly on LA C2-4-6) a big lack in both > domains -development and technology- of most of the participants, even > of > some on the platform. If we want the most important of the WSIS goals > be > achieved and the CS priority on development be respected, such > situations > both in IGF and in the Post-WSIS process must be cleared as soon as > possible. > Friendly yours > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Parminder" > To: ; "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" > ; "'Babatope Soremi'" > Cc: "'Abi'" > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:18 PM > Subject: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > > > > > >> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to > the > >> general public. > >> > >> * Last mile unbundling > >> > >> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > >> > >> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private > players > >> > >> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local > ISPs > >> (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access > to) > >> > >> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing > resources > >> (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange > point) > >> > >> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting > (and > >> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. > >> > > > > It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not > referring to > > any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus, > > actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this > issue > > last > > year) since these are not real IG issues, and claim that ICTs/ > Internet > > for > > development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of > people > > from > > the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG. > > > > If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these > > people > > on the MAG and in IGF at all. > > > > And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we > not > > need > > more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' > > expertise > > we should be trying to get into MAG, right. > > > > I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real > governance > > and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in > the > > MAG. > > I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox. > > > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:25 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Babatope Soremi > >> Cc: Abi > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > >> > >> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to > the > >> general public. > >> > >> * Last mile unbundling > >> > >> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > >> > >> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private > players > >> > >> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local > ISPs > >> (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access > to) > >> > >> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing > resources > >> (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange > point) > >> > >> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting > (and > >> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. > >> > >> I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the > IGF. > >> And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an > international > >> level. At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help > >> local > >> ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done. > >> > >> suresh > >> > >> Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]: > >> >Hi all, > >> > > >> >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor > quality of > >> >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service > provider. > >> > > >> >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where > quality of > >> >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have > no > >> >effective outlet to address this. > >> > > >> >Best Regards, > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. > Ce programme a supprimé13561 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. > Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. > Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: > http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Jun 5 05:36:12 2008 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:36:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking References: <20080604171848.07ADDA6CDC@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <003201c8c6ef$9ae32540$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Parminder I fully support your opinion on Internet for development/developing countries being one issue among others of Internet governance. This was also expressed in a lot of CS statements all along the second phase of WSIS. Therefore I also fully agree your statement that experts in development should be members of the MAG as to complement the experts in the technology domain. Moreover, there may be some CS people -mainly from NGOs that are active in the ICT/Internet domain in DCs and partnering with their local/national equivalents- who are are best aware of the cross-cutting issues, and should be therefore encouraged for representing the CS in such a body. Conversely, only a strong presence of 'developing experts' in this body will be able to balance the 'technology experts' (and the private sector representatives) in its ruling and decison taking process. Btw : The Action Lines facilitating meetings held in Geneva during one week in may, have shown (particularly on LA C2-4-6) a big lack in both domains -development and technology- of most of the participants, even of some on the platform. If we want the most important of the WSIS goals be achieved and the CS priority on development be respected, such situations both in IGF and in the Post-WSIS process must be cleared as soon as possible. Friendly yours Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parminder" To: ; "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" ; "'Babatope Soremi'" Cc: "'Abi'" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:18 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking > >> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the >> general public. >> >> * Last mile unbundling >> >> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls >> >> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players >> >> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs >> (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) >> >> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources >> (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) >> >> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and >> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. >> > > It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to > any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus, > actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue > last > year) since these are not real IG issues, and claim that ICTs/ Internet > for > development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of people > from > the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG. > > If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these > people > on the MAG and in IGF at all. > > And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we not > need > more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' > expertise > we should be trying to get into MAG, right. > > I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real governance > and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in the > MAG. > I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox. > > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:25 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Babatope Soremi >> Cc: Abi >> Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking >> >> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the >> general public. >> >> * Last mile unbundling >> >> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls >> >> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players >> >> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs >> (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) >> >> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources >> (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) >> >> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and >> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs. >> >> I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF. >> And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international >> level. At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help >> local >> ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done. >> >> suresh >> >> Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]: >> >Hi all, >> > >> >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of >> >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider. >> > >> >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of >> >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no >> >effective outlet to address this. >> > >> >Best Regards, >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé13561 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 5 07:50:05 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:50:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband programme Message-ID: Hi, A revised paper giving details of the programme, agenda and format of the Hyderabad meeting has just been put on the IGF website , file also attached. Becoming more fixed, but the paper is intended to reflect the process so far so still a work in progress. Note the new deadlines: 30 June * proposals for Open Forums. * proposals for Dynamic Coalition meetings. * requests for a booth in the IGF village. * revision of workshop proposals/merging of workshops. 12 September * submission of final programme for all workshops, best practice forums, open forums and Dynamic Coalition meetings. * submission of papers as an input for the Hyderabad meeting. Important: note the relationship between main session workshops and main sessions. We all need to work out the best way to design these workshops and main sessions. Thanks, Adam____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 159579 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 5 08:01:55 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:01:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit really is too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls. You contribute nothing of any value, all of us would be better ignoring you, but you've written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past couple of weeks to ignore... >On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and not >> organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. > >ummm, well I have known the the term "technical community" AS the >organizations that do Internet administration/ governance AND all >those who partake in the technical or administrative coordination of >internetworks. This term has been in use in this way for over a >decade. I think you are over-reaching if you think you can redefine >this term, but good luck with it if you insist on trying. > And this would be the same Internet technical community that according to George's explanation (I believe you wagged your tail in agreement) is perfectly capable of explaining why it should be considered a fourth stakeholder, but not coherent enough to organize an open process where some of that community submits names for MAG membership. That makes sense, huh... For the past four plus years ISOC, ICANN and a few others have ably represented the Internet technical community's interests in numerous statements, throughout WSIS, in IGF meetings, in the MAG recommending speakers and themes (we've even heard comments from IETF that they are OK with ISOC to take this representative role). Yet a bit of an open process to recommend a batch of names for MAG rotation (having committed to transparency, said what a great thing it is) turns out to be too much trouble. Sad. George, you're explanation of the Internet technical community as just "a lot of individuals" really doesn't hack it, it doesn't reflect the reality we've seen in WSIS/WGIG/IGF for the past few years. But at least you're no troll :-) Keeping lists open and discussing contentious issues isn't easy, this list has managed it for about 5 reasonably productive years (unfortunately steadily becoming less productive.) Remember the Internet technical community's attempt to discuss many of these issues, the Internet Societal Task Force... not a success. One last go at conflict of interest and a note from a few days (or perhaps weeks) ago... The nomcom's point was not that an RIR or a person employed by an RIR could not be civil society. It was that a person employed by such an organization may have a conflict of interest when it came to being able to represent the interests of the caucus above those of their employer. This is consistent with other criteria in the nomcom's report and consistent with discussion on the list before the nomcom began its work. I didn't agree with the majority, but at least can recognize the nomcom was being fair and accurate. Earlier the nomcom selected a person employed by ISOC, that person later withdrew, but nonetheless the nomcom had selected him. Isn't that indication enough the nomcom saw the possibility that someone could be part of the Internet technical community and also be CS? McTim, Suresh, if you want to be angry at anyone be angry at those who claim to be a stakeholder but don't allow you to participate unless you're an insider -- sod bottom-up processes and tens of thousands of members, keep it small and neat. Of course with a closed process there's no chance of the shit-storm of email we've seen on this list for the past 2 weeks. Your fantasies about the wonderful technical community are just hypocritical crap. Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move on. Comments on workshops and the new Hyderabad programme paper, IGF agenda, on coordinator elections? And not replying to trolls in future probably a good idea. Thanks, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 08:13:32 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:13:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to assist development? Message-ID: All, Below is the combined list of a set of issues (from previous posts) that Suresh an I seem to feel would be worthy of discussion, and better yet, action, by members of the group. This is clearly a subset of such issues, but it's an important subset. Suresh has responded with a bunch of initiatives that he has been involved in along these lines. I've been involved in a variety of others; see for example http://www.internetpolicy.net/. It could be useful to appreciate contributions that others have made. * Last mile unbundling * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources (And who don't trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) - Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet transactions, both national an international - Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with general business licensing processes at the national level - Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based pricing of Internet access - A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs on the other hand - Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections - Issues of filtering content at the national level - Permissive policies for anonymous communication - Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for protecting confidentiality of communication - Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP - Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities through training and facilities the ability to identify prosecute and convict spammers I commented earlier that these are issues that by and large unite civil society, the Internet community, and the business community. If so, that's a major plus. They are issues of policy that can be addressed in parallel in all countries of the world, and the goal of addressing them is to make the Internet available, accessible, affordable, useful and more secure than would otherwise be the case. IMHO these are the kinds of issues that not only should be discussed here, but are directly actionable at the national level. Is there any disagreement with this? Is there any interest in this within this group? Are other members of this group mobilizing action in these directions? I'm not disputing the value and the strength of words and ideas. As Barack Obama said in one of his earlier speeches when he was accused of just giving good speeches, " ... JUST WORDS?! 'We hold all people to be created free and equal ....' JUST WORDS? ... !" So perhaps it would also be useful to know the extent to which the words and the discussion expressed internally within this group have had a significant effect on Internet governance issues. It is easy to talk on-line about issues at the international level that have little if any connection with the real individual user experience in, say, developing countries. But is it worth doing -- as opposed to really addressing in an actionable manner the issues above, and others, that really impact development? Reactions to the above are welcome. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 08:16:41 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:46:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <008601c8c706$0477cb30$0d676190$@net> Adam, you can participate in just about every of those technical community groups - all the way from the IAB and IETF down to APNIC meetings (where I have seen you around, so..) In any process at all - and that's not at all limited to technical communities - you need to have a sufficient amount of familiarity and expertise with what is being discussed, if your ideas are to be given any kind of credibility. Add that to a community that in some cases doesn't suffer fools gladly and is vocal about it, and you wouldn't be blamed too much for confusing it with a closed process. The nomcom has, unfortunately, elected to blanket ban all employees of particular organizations. What you are suggesting be followed is a case by case, per person evaluation. I have no issues with that, especially as candidates are supposed to declare conflicts of interest when putting their names forward for election. I will repeat that quite a few technical community groups have given a lot more to the civsoc movement than you'd expect, and in key, critical areas of ICT4D rather than mere wrangling about ICANN and RIR politics and wars on control / oversight of these organizations, a concept which has dominated the minds of this caucus for quite some time this year .. and the year before, and the year before that [ad infinitum]. The converse, unfortunately, is just not true. Traditional civsoc hasn't contributed much beyond chaos and wrangling at the low end of the spectrum, and policy and theory at the higher end. Implementation - that vital thing - gets left to the technical community, or at least to those civsoc groups (such as NSRC, say) that identify with and are fully part of the technical community. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI > > been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit > really is too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls. You > contribute nothing of any value, all of us would be better ignoring > you, but you've written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past > couple of weeks to ignore... > > > >On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Parminder > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and not > >> organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. > > > >ummm, well I have known the the term "technical community" AS the > >organizations that do Internet administration/ governance AND all > >those who partake in the technical or administrative coordination of > >internetworks. This term has been in use in this way for over a > >decade. I think you are over-reaching if you think you can redefine > >this term, but good luck with it if you insist on trying. > > > > > And this would be the same Internet technical community that > according to George's explanation (I believe you wagged your tail in > agreement) is perfectly capable of explaining why it should be > considered a fourth stakeholder, but not coherent enough to organize > an open process where some of that community submits names for MAG > membership. That makes sense, huh... > > For the past four plus years ISOC, ICANN and a few others have ably > represented the Internet technical community's interests in numerous > statements, throughout WSIS, in IGF meetings, in the MAG recommending > speakers and themes (we've even heard comments from IETF that they > are OK with ISOC to take this representative role). Yet a bit of an > open process to recommend a batch of names for MAG rotation (having > committed to transparency, said what a great thing it is) turns out > to be too much trouble. Sad. > > George, you're explanation of the Internet technical community as > just "a lot of individuals" really doesn't hack it, it doesn't > reflect the reality we've seen in WSIS/WGIG/IGF for the past few > years. But at least you're no troll :-) > > Keeping lists open and discussing contentious issues isn't easy, this > list has managed it for about 5 reasonably productive years > (unfortunately steadily becoming less productive.) Remember the > Internet technical community's attempt to discuss many of these > issues, the Internet Societal Task Force... not a success. > > One last go at conflict of interest and a note from a few days (or > perhaps weeks) ago... The nomcom's point was not that an RIR or a > person employed by an RIR could not be civil society. It was that a > person employed by such an organization may have a conflict of > interest when it came to being able to represent the interests of the > caucus above those of their employer. This is consistent with other > criteria in the nomcom's report and consistent with discussion on > the list before the nomcom began its work. I didn't agree with the > majority, but at least can recognize the nomcom was being fair and > accurate. > > Earlier the nomcom selected a person employed by ISOC, that person > later withdrew, but nonetheless the nomcom had selected him. Isn't > that indication enough the nomcom saw the possibility that someone > could be part of the Internet technical community and also be CS? > > McTim, Suresh, if you want to be angry at anyone be angry at those > who claim to be a stakeholder but don't allow you to participate > unless you're an insider -- sod bottom-up processes and tens of > thousands of members, keep it small and neat. Of course with a > closed process there's no chance of the shit-storm of email we've > seen on this list for the past 2 weeks. Your fantasies about the > wonderful technical community are just hypocritical crap. > > Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move > on. Comments on workshops and the new Hyderabad programme paper, IGF > agenda, on coordinator elections? > > And not replying to trolls in future probably a good idea. > > Thanks, > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 08:21:31 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:51:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: How can civil society help the Internet to assist development? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008701c8c706$b17ab7c0$14702740$@net> Words are at their best when they're backed with 1. Knowledge rather than platitudes 2. Action. From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: How can civil society help the Internet to assist development? I'm not disputing the value and the strength of words and ideas. As Barack Obama said in one of his earlier speeches when he was accused of just giving good speeches, " ... JUST WORDS?! 'We hold all people to be created free and equal ....' JUST WORDS? ... !" So perhaps it would also be useful to know the extent to which the words and the discussion expressed internally within this group have had a significant effect on Internet governance issues. It is easy to talk on-line about issues at the international level that have little if any connection with the real individual user experience in, say, developing countries. But is it worth doing -- as opposed to really addressing in an actionable manner the issues above, and others, that really impact development? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Jun 5 08:44:57 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:44:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080605124457.GA4650@nic.fr> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:48:49AM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 210 lines which said: > I have known the the term "technical community" AS the organizations > that do Internet administration/ governance AND all those who > partake in the technical or administrative coordination of > internetworks. This term has been in use in this way for over a > decade. Only ICANN use it in that broad meaning. Otherwise, including ICANN, a regulatory body, in the "technical community" would make any technician laugh. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Jun 5 09:04:16 2008 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:04:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest In-Reply-To: References: <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4847E450.6030706@jacquelinemorris.com> Hi I would agree to support such an amendment (Having slogged through the whole discussion but not posted as there seemed no need for even more emails!) Jacqueline McTim wrote: > > > So what is your position? Would you agree to the amendment I have suggested? > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 5 09:05:15 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:05:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: George, about a month ago Karen posted a note (below) about APC's work on access, it's an outcome of their efforts in the IGF and their work with other stakeholders. You've been very involved in IGF access sessions and discussions so know most of the progress in IGF on access has been very much a join effort between CS and the Internet community, particularly ISOC/APC (and the organizations/people they respectively brought to the process.) My understanding is APC, ISOC and private sector are trying to make progress with these ideas, they are specific to IGF, cover many of the issues you mention, so if we are to discuss something perhaps it could be part of an ongoing IGF dialogue. Thanks, Adam At 8:12 AM +0100 5/7/08, karen banks wrote: > >Dear all > >Just prior to the February consultation, i >posted a report on the cluster of access related >events at the Rio IGF - "Building concensus on >Access at the IGF" > >The paper has now been edited and formatted and >will be available in hard copy at the May >consultation for thos interested.. soft copies >available online here: >http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf > >An abstract of the paper is below which contains >specific proposals to the IGF community on how >to address the theme of access in the coming >years. > >We are very interested to hear reactions from colleagues .. > >thanks a lot and see some of you in geneva next week > >karen > >Building consensus on internet access at the IGF >Abiodun Jagun >APC, Montevideo, May 2008 > >This paper identifies and documents the main >areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that >were generated under the Access theme at the >second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio De >Janeiro, November 2007. > >Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently >viewed and operates primarily as a space for >discussion, the paper finds that (specifically >in the case of Access) it is also a space in >which commonality of opinion occurs to the level >at which "recommendation" can be made and >repeatedly asserted independently/individually >in the workshops, and strategically reinforced >at different levels of the IGF. > >The levels addressed in the paper include: > >- the three "thematic" workshops on access >- the reporting back session >- and the main access plenary > >The paper finds the generation and articulation >of recommendations to be in line with the >mandate of the IGF, specifically: > >"Advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and >means to accelerate the availability and >affordability of the Internet in the developing >world." > >Whilst a variety of recommendations were made, >these can be categorised into the following >broad areas: > >* Enhancement of the development of and access >to infrastructure -- in recognising that the >availability of internet infrastructure needs to >be considered hand-in-hand with the >affordability of the infrastructure, this >recommendation calls for the consistent >implementation of competitive regimes and the >creation of incentives that facilitate the >co-existence of competitive and collaborative >models for providing and/or improving access. > >* Localisation of ICT and Telecom policies and >regulation -- refers to calls for a review of >the ways in which access issues are articulated >and ICT/Telecom policy and regulation is >formulated. It asks that the >translation/customisation of largely >urban-centric policies be challenged and that >greater emphasis be given to demand-side >characteristics and the needs of rural/local >communities. > >* Promoting the development potential of ICTs >and integrating access infrastructure >initiatives with other basic needs -- calls for >a multi-sectoral approach to infrastructure >development and regulation; specifically the >integration of ICT regulation and policy with >local development strategies, as well as the >exploitation of complementarities between >different types of development infrastructure > >This paper proposes that the convergence in >opinions about how to address the challenges of >access may be a result of a maturity in >understanding of the issues relating to access >that has built up over time and is discussed in >other related bodies and fora. However, thinking >and understanding of "tools" and implementation >procedures/processes of solutions for >resolving/addressing these well understood >issues and challenges cannot be described as >having attained a similar level of maturity -- >in fact, particularly in the case of rural/local >access they can be described as infantile. > >There is therefore continued need and relevance >for addressing Access at future IGF meetings, >however the way in which this will need to be >done will have to be different from the largely >discursive identification of issues and >challenges. The Internet governance community >and indeed the portion of the world's population >waiting to gain access to the Internet would >benefit from a more implementation-orientation >to future discussions on Access. > >One idea proposed by APC is that the IGF uses >the format of the Working Group on Internet >Governance (WGIG, established during the World >Summit on the Information Society), or bodies >such as the Internet Engineering Task Force >(IETF) to convene working groups to address >complex issues that emerge during a forum. These >groups can be made up of individuals with the >necessary expertise and drawn from different >stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage >specific issues in greater depth, and, if they >feel it is required, develop recommendations >that can be communicated to the internet >community at large, or addressed to specific >institutions. > >These recommendations need not be presented as >formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, >but as recommendations or suggestions for action >from the individuals in the working group. > >These working groups have a different role from >the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we >believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have >a broader mandate and are informal in nature. >APC sees IGF working groups as differing from >dynamic coalitions in that they should address >particular challenges rather than a general >issue area. They will also have a degree of >accountability and an obligation to report that >dynamic coalitions do not have. One such group >could be a working group on competitive and >collaborative models for access. > (end KB email) >All, > >Below is the combined list of a set of issues >(from previous posts) that Suresh an I seem to >feel would be worthy of discussion, and better >yet, action, by members of the group. This is >clearly a subset of such issues, but it's an >important subset. > >Suresh has responded with a bunch of initiatives >that he has been involved in along these lines. >I've been involved in a variety of others; see >for example http://www.internetpolicy.net/. It >could be useful to appreciate contributions that >others have made. > >* Last mile unbundling > >* Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls > >* Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players > >* Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs > (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) > >* Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources > (And who don't trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) > >- Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet > transactions, both national an international > >- Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with > general business licensing processes at the national level > >- Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based > pricing of Internet access > >- A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international > Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs > on the other hand > >- Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections > >- Issues of filtering content at the national level > >- Permissive policies for anonymous communication > >- Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for > protecting confidentiality of communication > >- Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP > >- Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and > vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities > through training and facilities the ability to identify > prosecute and convict spammers > >I commented earlier that these are issues that >by and large unite civil society, the Internet >community, and the business community. If so, >that's a major plus. They are issues of policy >that can be addressed in parallel in all >countries of the world, and the goal of >addressing them is to make the Internet >available, accessible, affordable, useful and >more secure than would otherwise be the case. >IMHO these are the kinds of issues that not only >should be discussed here, but are directly >actionable at the national level. > >Is there any disagreement with this? > >Is there any interest in this within this group? > >Are other members of this group mobilizing action in these directions? > >I'm not disputing the value and the strength of >words and ideas. As Barack Obama said in one of >his earlier speeches when he was accused of just >giving good speeches, " ... JUST WORDS?! 'We >hold all people to be created free and equal >....' JUST WORDS? ... !" So perhaps it would >also be useful to know the extent to which the >words and the discussion expressed internally >within this group have had a significant effect >on Internet governance issues. > >It is easy to talk on-line about issues at the >international level that have little if any >connection with the real individual user >experience in, say, developing countries. But >is it worth doing -- as opposed to really >addressing in an actionable manner the issues >above, and others, that really impact >development? > >Reactions to the above are welcome. > >George > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jun 5 09:22:45 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:22:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080605132258.42F48527696@mail.gn.apc.org> hi adam At 14:05 05/06/2008, Adam Peake wrote: >George, about a month ago Karen posted a note >(below) about APC's work on access, it's an >outcome of their efforts in the IGF and their >work with other stakeholders. You've been very >involved in IGF access sessions and discussions >so know most of the progress in IGF on access >has been very much a join effort between CS and >the Internet community, particularly ISOC/APC >(and the organizations/people they respectively brought to the process.) > >My understanding is APC, ISOC and private sector >are trying to make progress with these ideas, >they are specific to IGF, cover many of the >issues you mention, so if we are to discuss >something perhaps it could be part of an ongoing IGF dialogue. thanks for posting this note.. i'd wanted to respond to the thread suresh and george had started - which i do think is useful.. and i understand that we're all at different points and levels in terms of access to information and involvement in the process so it's understandable that many folk would not be aware of the - *not insubtantial work* - that has been done along the development, ICTD and Access themes at the IGF this past 2-3 years. there are many groups and individuals involved in taking forward some of the issue areas mentioned - one area worth noting in particular i think is bill drake's work leading the 'development agenda' for the IGF - having organised workshops for the past two years, and another this year - i'm sure bill would have written something against this thread but i know he is travelling in china - and probably not accessing mail much the access paper mentioned above - and the approach to it's development (the involvement of all or many of those, involved in access related workshops) is one way of building knowledge between and amongst the community - maybe we can propose similar approaches to clusters of issues for the upcoming meeting in a way - they represent a record of sorts - and in the absence of formal reports - this is a good way of building 'process memory' - that can be shared.. an extract form our upcoming 2007 annual report: "In 2007, APC built on its strategy of 2006, which was to get the theme of “internet access” onto the agenda of the IGF at its first meeting in Athens. For the second IGF meeting in Rio, we had to do more than discuss access as a policy issue. So the CIPP team undertook to analyse [1] the content of the three workshops and the plenary session on access to see to what extent there was a convergence of views. Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently viewed and operates primarily as a space for discussion, it is also a space in which consensus can lead to ‘recommendations’ [2]. The recommendations can then be repeatedly asserted independently in workshops, and strategically reinforced at different levels of the IGF – influencing governments, technical bodies and think-tanks. Views converged in the following areas: - Competition and incentives are needed if all citizens are to have affordable, available access - Rural and local communities need suitable ICT and telecoms policies. Current policies –which usually serve urban areas- need adaptation. - ICT regulation and policy need to complement local development strategies. 1 http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf 2 APC’s recommendations to the IGF: http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/world/apc-statement-2007-internet-governance-forum karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 17:25:21 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:25:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <008601c8c706$0477cb30$0d676190$@net> Message-ID: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> While agreeing overall with the list compiled by George and sharing some reservations about the overall narrowness of this group relative to what would be required for being truly reflective of CS in the context of Internet Governance I must intervene to note that the message below is simply trollish twaddle... Issues of the use of the Internet in support of development (ie. ICT4D) START with the issues presented in George's note and dare I say represent only the most basic starting point for ICT4D. The real challenge of ICT4D is not getting the bits and bytes issues solved (necessary but most certainly not sufficient) rather it has to do with putting into place appropriate social/organizational/learning/management/content/service etc.etc. infrastructures which can support the effective use of ICTs in the range of areas where an ICT infrastructure can make a developmental contribution. It is the mostly unsung community practitioners (CS more or less to a man/woman--whether or not they have found the means to formally participate in august bodies such as this one) who actually do the work of ICT4D very often (unfortunately) despite the condescending and uncomprehending behaviours of the techies whose concern is most often "quality" of technical performance rather than utility of system operation. I've spent way way too much of my professional life fighting with smug and dangerously narrow techies who had no idea that there were actually users out there who were often desperately trying to make systems work for them, where they were, for their purposes, in the face of incomprehensible technical gobbledy gook, the sweatless arrogance of folks sitting in front of consoles in air conditioned rooms, and generally systems engineers who thought that simply laying the wires (or whatever) so that they functioned according to spec was sufficient to achieve useful developmental outcomes. I completely agree with Adam that you are a troll here as you seem to have little or no interest in the reality/utility of what you are discussing and simply are making your points (repeatedly) apparently as a means to disrupt discussion by others who, whatever their other faults at least have a measure of honesty about their motivations for participation in this forum. If you have a resolution, please present it for discussion and presumably some form of decision, if not I move that we move on and that there be no further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. MG -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: June 5, 2008 5:17 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake' Subject: RE: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI Adam, you can participate in just about every of those technical community groups - all the way from the IAB and IETF down to APNIC meetings (where I have seen you around, so..) In any process at all - and that's not at all limited to technical communities - you need to have a sufficient amount of familiarity and expertise with what is being discussed, if your ideas are to be given any kind of credibility. Add that to a community that in some cases doesn't suffer fools gladly and is vocal about it, and you wouldn't be blamed too much for confusing it with a closed process. The nomcom has, unfortunately, elected to blanket ban all employees of particular organizations. What you are suggesting be followed is a case by case, per person evaluation. I have no issues with that, especially as candidates are supposed to declare conflicts of interest when putting their names forward for election. I will repeat that quite a few technical community groups have given a lot more to the civsoc movement than you'd expect, and in key, critical areas of ICT4D rather than mere wrangling about ICANN and RIR politics and wars on control / oversight of these organizations, a concept which has dominated the minds of this caucus for quite some time this year .. and the year before, and the year before that [ad infinitum]. The converse, unfortunately, is just not true. Traditional civsoc hasn't contributed much beyond chaos and wrangling at the low end of the spectrum, and policy and theory at the higher end. Implementation - that vital thing - gets left to the technical community, or at least to those civsoc groups (such as NSRC, say) that identify with and are fully part of the technical community. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI > > been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit > really is too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls. You > contribute nothing of any value, all of us would be better ignoring > you, but you've written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past > couple of weeks to ignore... > > > >On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Parminder > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and > >> not organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. > > > >ummm, well I have known the the term "technical community" AS the > >organizations that do Internet administration/ governance AND all > >those who partake in the technical or administrative coordination of > >internetworks. This term has been in use in this way for over a > >decade. I think you are over-reaching if you think you can redefine > >this term, but good luck with it if you insist on trying. > > > > > And this would be the same Internet technical community that according > to George's explanation (I believe you wagged your tail in > agreement) is perfectly capable of explaining why it should be > considered a fourth stakeholder, but not coherent enough to organize > an open process where some of that community submits names for MAG > membership. That makes sense, huh... > > For the past four plus years ISOC, ICANN and a few others have ably > represented the Internet technical community's interests in numerous > statements, throughout WSIS, in IGF meetings, in the MAG recommending > speakers and themes (we've even heard comments from IETF that they are > OK with ISOC to take this representative role). Yet a bit of an open > process to recommend a batch of names for MAG rotation (having > committed to transparency, said what a great thing it is) turns out to > be too much trouble. Sad. > > George, you're explanation of the Internet technical community as just > "a lot of individuals" really doesn't hack it, it doesn't reflect the > reality we've seen in WSIS/WGIG/IGF for the past few years. But at > least you're no troll :-) > > Keeping lists open and discussing contentious issues isn't easy, this > list has managed it for about 5 reasonably productive years > (unfortunately steadily becoming less productive.) Remember the > Internet technical community's attempt to discuss many of these > issues, the Internet Societal Task Force... not a success. > > One last go at conflict of interest and a note from a few days (or > perhaps weeks) ago... The nomcom's point was not that an RIR or a > person employed by an RIR could not be civil society. It was that a > person employed by such an organization may have a conflict of > interest when it came to being able to represent the interests of the > caucus above those of their employer. This is consistent with other > criteria in the nomcom's report and consistent with discussion on the > list before the nomcom began its work. I didn't agree with the > majority, but at least can recognize the nomcom was being fair and > accurate. > > Earlier the nomcom selected a person employed by ISOC, that person > later withdrew, but nonetheless the nomcom had selected him. Isn't > that indication enough the nomcom saw the possibility that someone > could be part of the Internet technical community and also be CS? > > McTim, Suresh, if you want to be angry at anyone be angry at those who > claim to be a stakeholder but don't allow you to participate unless > you're an insider -- sod bottom-up processes and tens of thousands of > members, keep it small and neat. Of course with a closed process > there's no chance of the shit-storm of email we've seen on this list > for the past 2 weeks. Your fantasies about the wonderful technical > community are just hypocritical crap. > > Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move > on. Comments on workshops and the new Hyderabad programme paper, IGF > agenda, on coordinator elections? > > And not replying to trolls in future probably a good idea. > > Thanks, > > Adam ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 09:54:35 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:54:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <1FAAB348-994C-443A-96DE-00BD312CFEC5@psg.com> <20080604171530.7DDF3E2547@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Adam, On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit Can you tell me what specifically you mean? I have people not involved in this thread mailing me in support of non-discrimination. really is > too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls. "Ogre" if you please (makes me seem more Shrek-like). NB: I have been on dozens of IG lists in the last 10 years, but this is the first time I've ever been called a "troll". A first for me! w00t! You contribute > nothing of any value, except of course, the truth as we experience it. all of us would be better ignoring you, but you've > written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past couple of weeks to > ignore... > > > And this would be the same Internet technical community that according to > George's explanation (I believe you wagged your tail in agreement) is > perfectly capable of explaining why it should be considered a fourth > stakeholder, but not coherent enough to organize an open process where some > of that community submits names for MAG membership. That makes sense, huh... Is there a requirement for an open transparent process to submit names for the MAG? If so, perhaps you could describe that f the PS and gov'ts? > > For the past four plus years ISOC, ICANN and a few others have ably > represented the Internet technical community's interests in numerous > statements, throughout WSIS, in IGF meetings, in the MAG recommending > speakers and themes (we've even heard comments from IETF that they are OK > with ISOC to take this representative role). Yet a bit of an open process to > recommend a batch of names for MAG rotation (having committed to > transparency, said what a great thing it is) turns out to be too much > trouble. Sad. Adam, you see these people much more often than I do, why don't you ask them? My take on it is this; if it was actual Internet Governance, I'm sure they would, but since the IGF doesn't have any operational impact, I see it as more of an outreach/capacity building thing for them. > > George, you're explanation of the Internet technical community as just "a > lot of individuals" really doesn't hack it, it doesn't reflect the reality > we've seen in WSIS/WGIG/IGF for the past few years. But at least you're no > troll :-) > > Keeping lists open and discussing contentious issues isn't easy, this list > has managed it for about 5 reasonably productive years (unfortunately > steadily becoming less productive.) Remember the Internet technical > community's attempt to discuss many of these issues, the Internet Societal > Task Force... not a success. > But the vast majority of policy and standards making lists are successful. > One last go at conflict of interest and a note from a few days (or perhaps > weeks) ago... The nomcom's point was not that an RIR or a person employed > by an RIR could not be civil society. It was that a person employed by such > an organization may have a conflict of interest when it came to being able > to represent the interests of the caucus above those of their employer. and they didn't think that many others outside the technical community have the same potential conflicts? and they chose non-caucus members to represent the caucus? My main gripe with this action was that it excludes a nebulous group of people, some of whom might be caucus members, when we are all supposed to have equal rights. > This is consistent with other criteria in the nomcom's report and > consistent with discussion on the list before the nomcom began its work. I > didn't agree with the majority, but at least can recognize the nomcom was > being fair and accurate. If they wanted to be fair, they should have followed rule #5, if they wanted to be accurate, they would have made a list of orgs whose staff are to be excluded. > > Earlier the nomcom selected a person employed by ISOC, that person later > withdrew, but nonetheless the nomcom had selected him. Isn't that > indication enough the nomcom saw the possibility that someone could be part > of the Internet technical community and also be CS? I was quite curious about that, but thought that bringing it up would be impolite ;-) So they decided to exclude, inter alia, ISOC staff, but selected one anyway? Why would they break their own rule? maybe someone on the nomcom can explain! > McTim, Suresh, if you want to be angry at anyone be angry at those who claim > to be a stakeholder but don't allow you to participate unless you're an > insider -- sod bottom-up processes and tens of thousands of members, keep it > small and neat. This wasn't my experience when i was a newbie at all. In fact, the org I used to work for has a "newbie" program, as does the IETF! Of course with a closed process there's no chance of the > shit-storm of email we've seen on this list for the past 2 weeks. not true, they get a bit hectic sometimes. Your > fantasies about the wonderful technical community are just hypocritical > crap. > or honest belief. > Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move on. It certainly would, but this is a major point of principle for me. Would you be willing to "move on" if you thought the spirit of the charter was violated? As for MGs comment, I HAVE presented a resolution, a relatively benign one adding a few words to the nomcom page and it has been seconded. AFAIK, we need 10 folk in support of this, and I have asked the coordinator to begin counting those who support exclusion and those who oppose it. So far, he has ignored this request. I have been asked off list in the last hour ; "maybe a change to allow votes on censure for NomCom and other sub-groups that overstep their madate might also be in order" but that is out of scope for this discussion. -- 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 avri at psg.com Thu Jun 5 11:19:30 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:19:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <182AF003-6A93-46E0-83FB-0A4A892229BA@psg.com> On 5 Jun 2008, at 23:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: > if not I move that we move on and that there be no > further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple > declaration > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > concerning > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. i can certainly support this statement. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Jun 5 11:52:16 2008 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:52:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <182AF003-6A93-46E0-83FB-0A4A892229BA@psg.com> References: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> <182AF003-6A93-46E0-83FB-0A4A892229BA@psg.com> Message-ID: <48480BB0.7070807@jacquelinemorris.com> I support that the NomCom consults with the group on criteria for selection. Jacqueline Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2008, at 23:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> if not I move that we move on and that there be no >> further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple >> declaration >> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >> concerning >> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > > i can certainly support this statement. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 12:03:57 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:03:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <20080605132258.42F48527696@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20080605132258.42F48527696@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20080605160357.GC28341@hserus.net> karen banks [05/06/08 14:22 +0100]: > the issue areas mentioned - one area worth noting in particular i think > is bill drake's work leading the 'development agenda' for the IGF - That is one of the most useful parts of the IGF that I could think of. The other being David Allen's "intellectuals in the IGF" session at Athens - which was thinking of a chatham house structured group of academics, who would observe IGF work dispassionately and with statistical rigor. Another part of the group would (I believe) take ideas from this process and work with the secretariat to implement them. Having missed Rio (way too far for me to travel, 30+ hours) I dont know what happened to that one. But it definitely had (or rather, has) potential thanks srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 12:09:53 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:09:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008601c8c706$0477cb30$0d676190$@net> <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080605160953.GD28341@hserus.net> Michael Gurstein [05/06/08 14:25 -0700]: >The real challenge of ICT4D is not getting the bits and bytes issues solved >(necessary but most certainly not sufficient) rather it has to do with >putting into place appropriate >social/organizational/learning/management/content/service etc.etc. Well yes, that'd actually go without saying. But as I've said before there's enough shared synergy between these two groups. I work on the boundary between policy and tech in my own little corner of the IG world .. wsis action line C5. C2/4/6 access and capacity building issues are critical as a support mechanism for C5, besides providing a solid base for C5 activities to build on - and I've pointed that out in more than one paper I've written, and implement that on a fairly regular basis. My issue is not with those people (I've met them, I know what they do and I sincerely appreciate it). But they're not the people who're playing ICANN politics on this list. >further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration >that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning >the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. That is ALL I asked for. Parminder at least seems to think otherwise. It is a simple resolution. If you get consensus on this, I'm fine with it. thanks 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 12:22:37 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:22:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these issues, and it is potentially a very useful document. I want to go a step further. Granted that there is an evolving consensus regarding issues surrounding access, what is the next step? Is this something to start a national scorecard on? Is it something to be followed up at the national level in all countries? I fear that continuing to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the most part, the converted preaching to the converted. This is an area, where in general you have an alignment of civil society, the Internet community, and most of the business community. On the other side, generally, you have governments and businesses (often telcos) that have monopoly or controlling positions. At some point, words don't go further in an alignment like that. What can be done further? George At 10:05 PM +0900 6/5/08, Adam Peake wrote: >George, about a month ago Karen posted a note >(below) about APC's work on access, it's an >outcome of their efforts in the IGF and their >work with other stakeholders. You've been very >involved in IGF access sessions and discussions >so know most of the progress in IGF on access >has been very much a join effort between CS and >the Internet community, particularly ISOC/APC >(and the organizations/people they respectively >brought to the process.) > >My understanding is APC, ISOC and private sector >are trying to make progress with these ideas, >they are specific to IGF, cover many of the >issues you mention, so if we are to discuss >something perhaps it could be part of an ongoing >IGF dialogue. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > >At 8:12 AM +0100 5/7/08, karen banks wrote: >> >>Dear all >> >>Just prior to the February consultation, i >>posted a report on the cluster of access >>related events at the Rio IGF - "Building >>concensus on Access at the IGF" >> >>The paper has now been edited and formatted and >>will be available in hard copy at the May >>consultation for thos interested.. soft copies >>available online here: >>http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf >> >>An abstract of the paper is below which >>contains specific proposals to the IGF >>community on how to address the theme of access >>in the coming years. >> >>We are very interested to hear reactions from colleagues .. >> >>thanks a lot and see some of you in geneva next week >> >>karen >> >>Building consensus on internet access at the IGF >>Abiodun Jagun >>APC, Montevideo, May 2008 >> >>This paper identifies and documents the main >>areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that >>were generated under the Access theme at the >>second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio >>De Janeiro, November 2007. >> >>Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently >>viewed and operates primarily as a space for >>discussion, the paper finds that (specifically >>in the case of Access) it is also a space in >>which commonality of opinion occurs to the >>level at which "recommendation" can be made and >>repeatedly asserted independently/individually >>in the workshops, and strategically reinforced >>at different levels of the IGF. >> >>The levels addressed in the paper include: >> >>- the three "thematic" workshops on access >>- the reporting back session >>- and the main access plenary >> >>The paper finds the generation and articulation >>of recommendations to be in line with the >>mandate of the IGF, specifically: >> >>"Advising all stakeholders in proposing ways >>and means to accelerate the availability and >>affordability of the Internet in the developing >>world." >> >>Whilst a variety of recommendations were made, >>these can be categorised into the following >>broad areas: >> >>* Enhancement of the development of and access >>to infrastructure -- in recognising that the >>availability of internet infrastructure needs >>to be considered hand-in-hand with the >>affordability of the infrastructure, this >>recommendation calls for the consistent >>implementation of competitive regimes and the >>creation of incentives that facilitate the >>co-existence of competitive and collaborative >>models for providing and/or improving access. >> >>* Localisation of ICT and Telecom policies and >>regulation -- refers to calls for a review of >>the ways in which access issues are articulated >>and ICT/Telecom policy and regulation is >>formulated. It asks that the >>translation/customisation of largely >>urban-centric policies be challenged and that >>greater emphasis be given to demand-side >>characteristics and the needs of rural/local >>communities. >> >>* Promoting the development potential of ICTs >>and integrating access infrastructure >>initiatives with other basic needs -- calls for >>a multi-sectoral approach to infrastructure >>development and regulation; specifically the >>integration of ICT regulation and policy with >>local development strategies, as well as the >>exploitation of complementarities between >>different types of development infrastructure >> >>This paper proposes that the convergence in >>opinions about how to address the challenges of >>access may be a result of a maturity in >>understanding of the issues relating to access >>that has built up over time and is discussed in >>other related bodies and fora. However, >>thinking and understanding of "tools" and >>implementation procedures/processes of >>solutions for resolving/addressing these well >>understood issues and challenges cannot be >>described as having attained a similar level of >>maturity -- in fact, particularly in the case >>of rural/local access they can be described as >>infantile. >> >>There is therefore continued need and relevance >>for addressing Access at future IGF meetings, >>however the way in which this will need to be >>done will have to be different from the largely >>discursive identification of issues and >>challenges. The Internet governance community >>and indeed the portion of the world's >>population waiting to gain access to the >>Internet would benefit from a more >>implementation-orientation to future >>discussions on Access. >> >>One idea proposed by APC is that the IGF uses >>the format of the Working Group on Internet >>Governance (WGIG, established during the World >>Summit on the Information Society), or bodies >>such as the Internet Engineering Task Force >>(IETF) to convene working groups to address >>complex issues that emerge during a forum. >>These groups can be made up of individuals with >>the necessary expertise and drawn from >>different stakeholder groups. These groups can >>then engage specific issues in greater depth, >>and, if they feel it is required, develop >>recommendations that can be communicated to the >>internet community at large, or addressed to >>specific institutions. >> >>These recommendations need not be presented as >>formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, >>but as recommendations or suggestions for >>action from the individuals in the working >>group. >> >>These working groups have a different role from >>the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we >>believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions >>have a broader mandate and are informal in >>nature. APC sees IGF working groups as >>differing from dynamic coalitions in that they >>should address particular challenges rather >>than a general issue area. They will also have >>a degree of accountability and an obligation to >>report that dynamic coalitions do not have. One >>such group could be a working group on >>competitive and collaborative models for access. >> > > >(end KB email) > >>All, >> >>Below is the combined list of a set of issues >>(from previous posts) that Suresh an I seem to >>feel would be worthy of discussion, and better >>yet, action, by members of the group. This is >>clearly a subset of such issues, but it's an >>important subset. >> >>Suresh has responded with a bunch of >>initiatives that he has been involved in along >>these lines. I've been involved in a variety of >>others; see for example >>http://www.internetpolicy.net/. It could be >>useful to appreciate contributions that others >>have made. >> >>* Last mile unbundling >> >>* Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls >> >>* Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players >> >>* Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs >> (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) >> >>* Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources >> (And who don't trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) >> >>- Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet >> transactions, both national an international >> >>- Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with >> general business licensing processes at the national level >> >>- Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based >> pricing of Internet access >> >>- A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international >> Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs >> on the other hand >> >>- Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections >> >>- Issues of filtering content at the national level >> >>- Permissive policies for anonymous communication >> >>- Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for >> protecting confidentiality of communication >> >>- Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP >> >>- Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and >> vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities >> through training and facilities the ability to identify >> prosecute and convict spammers >> >>I commented earlier that these are issues that >>by and large unite civil society, the Internet >>community, and the business community. If so, >>that's a major plus. They are issues of policy >>that can be addressed in parallel in all >>countries of the world, and the goal of >>addressing them is to make the Internet >>available, accessible, affordable, useful and >>more secure than would otherwise be the case. >>IMHO these are the kinds of issues that not >>only should be discussed here, but are directly >>actionable at the national level. >> >>Is there any disagreement with this? >> >>Is there any interest in this within this group? >> >>Are other members of this group mobilizing action in these directions? >> >>I'm not disputing the value and the strength of >>words and ideas. As Barack Obama said in one >>of his earlier speeches when he was accused of >>just giving good speeches, " ... JUST WORDS?! >>'We hold all people to be created free and >>equal ....' JUST WORDS? ... !" So perhaps it >>would also be useful to know the extent to >>which the words and the discussion expressed >>internally within this group have had a >>significant effect on Internet governance >>issues. >> >>It is easy to talk on-line about issues at the >>international level that have little if any >>connection with the real individual user >>experience in, say, developing countries. But >>is it worth doing -- as opposed to really >>addressing in an actionable manner the issues >>above, and others, that really impact >>development? >> >>Reactions to the above are welcome. >> >>George >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 12:32:39 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:32:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <20080605160953.GD28341@hserus.net> References: <008601c8c706$0477cb30$0d676190$@net> <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080605160953.GD28341@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > My issue is not with those people (I've met them, I know what they do and I > sincerely appreciate it). But they're not the people who're playing ICANN > politics on this list. > strewth! >> further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration >> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >> concerning >> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. Where would we put this "declaration"? If we put it on the nomcom page, then I would rather remove the words "whenever possible" from the sentence: "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made" In other words, all future nomcoms MUST make make criteria public before they are used to select nominees. If we don't make it part of the charter/nomcompage, then what is to stop a future nomcom from "forgetting" about this declaration? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 5 12:37:20 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:07:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01c8c72a$6e66bdc0$4b343940$@net> A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the incumbent telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, and not trusting each other to peer on the other etc) do get addressed at a local level by 1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on discussions 2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom / consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely (and with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh yes, and media attention to these issues. Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of free / cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing out CDs with ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I remember picking one up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for example..) But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local issues and require local knowledge, local coordination. Global coordination in these areas would be much more valuable in sharing experiences, and developing a set of shared best practices (nothing on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's declaration of independence of cyberspace) Suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these > issues, and it is potentially a very useful > document. > > I want to go a step further. Granted that there > is an evolving consensus regarding issues > surrounding access, what is the next step? Is > this something to start a national scorecard on? > Is it something to be followed up at the national > level in all countries? I fear that continuing > to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the > most part, the converted preaching to the > converted. > > This is an area, where in general you have an > alignment of civil society, the Internet > community, and most of the business community. > On the other side, generally, you have > governments and businesses (often telcos) that > have monopoly or controlling positions. > > At some point, words don't go further in an > alignment like that. What can be done further? > > George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jun 5 12:58:36 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:58:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: <008601c8c706$0477cb30$0d676190$@net> <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080605160953.GD28341@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3905FEDA-D2C5-4D01-9F1D-D9729B948BCE@psg.com> Hi, while we could amend the nomcom procedure to say that, and go through the voting thing and all that, i would argue that the intent of the caucus in this is more important then the words. then again, assuming we ever have a vote for a new coordinator, it may not be that big a deal to amend the charter as you suggest. i would go along with the change but i am not sure it is needed - who wants to go through this again? when originally written it was meant to allow some flexibility and to be more of guideline, but if guidelines + plus the intent of the caucus to guard that the guidelines are followed in all but the most exceptional circumstances is not sufficient, then perhaps we need a formal voted change to the text. a. On 5 Jun 2008, at 18:32, McTim wrote: >>> >>> further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple >>> declaration >>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >>> concerning >>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > Where would we put this "declaration"? > > If we put it on the nomcom page, then I would rather remove the words > "whenever possible" from the sentence: > > "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made" > > In other words, all future nomcoms MUST make make criteria public > before they are used to select nominees. > > If we don't make it part of the charter/nomcompage, then what is to > stop a future nomcom from "forgetting" about this declaration? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Jun 5 13:24:34 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:24:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to assist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48482152.8050906@cavebear.com> George Sadowsky wrote: > Below is the combined list of a set of issues ... There are a lot of good ideas in your list. There's at least one more that I have suggested previously (and received positive response from this list): - The creation of some sort of clearinghouse mechanism through which users (or their agents/ISPs) can negotiate fully end-to-end service level agreements so that users can obtain (perhaps not for free) a real assurance (not a guarantee) that for user-selected applications that they will be able to obtain network quality and availability sufficient to support those applications. (The most obvious example are VoIP applications in which a user [or user's nation] makes an investment in VoIP and needs an assurance that it will be able to obtain external network connectivity that will support VoIP with relatively low delay/jitter, low loss connectivity. --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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 13:08:35 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <000f01c8c72a$6e66bdc0$4b343940$@net> References: <000f01c8c72a$6e66bdc0$4b343940$@net> Message-ID: I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see 10 presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to these goals? George At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the incumbent >telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, and not trusting >each other to peer on the other etc) do get addressed at a local level by > >1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on >discussions > >2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom / >consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely (and >with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh yes, and >media attention to these issues. > >Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of free / >cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing out CDs with >ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I remember picking one >up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for example..) > >But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local issues and >require local knowledge, local coordination. Global coordination in these >areas would be much more valuable in sharing experiences, and developing a >set of shared best practices (nothing on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's >declaration of independence of cyberspace) > > Suresh > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to >> >> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these >> issues, and it is potentially a very useful >> document. >> >> I want to go a step further. Granted that there >> is an evolving consensus regarding issues >> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is >> this something to start a national scorecard on? >> Is it something to be followed up at the national >> level in all countries? I fear that continuing >> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the >> most part, the converted preaching to the >> converted. >> >> This is an area, where in general you have an >> alignment of civil society, the Internet >> community, and most of the business community. >> On the other side, generally, you have >> governments and businesses (often telcos) that >> have monopoly or controlling positions. >> >> At some point, words don't go further in an >> alignment like that. What can be done further? >> >> George > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 13:35:01 2008 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:35:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <48482152.8050906@cavebear.com> References: <48482152.8050906@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Definitely add to the list. I think that it's more general and better state than my shorter reference to VoIP only. At 10:24 AM -0700 6/5/08, Karl Auerbach wrote: >George Sadowsky wrote: > >>Below is the combined list of a set of issues ... > >There are a lot of good ideas in your list. > >There's at least one more that I have suggested previously (and >received positive response from this list): > > - The creation of some sort of clearinghouse mechanism through >which users (or their agents/ISPs) can negotiate fully end-to-end >service level agreements so that users can obtain (perhaps not for >free) a real assurance (not a guarantee) that for user-selected >applications that they will be able to obtain network quality and >availability sufficient to support those applications. > >(The most obvious example are VoIP applications in which a user [or >user's nation] makes an investment in VoIP and needs an assurance >that it will be able to obtain external network connectivity that >will support VoIP with relatively low delay/jitter, low loss >connectivity. > > --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 wcurrie at apc.org Thu Jun 5 16:03:18 2008 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:03:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c8c72a$6e66bdc0$4b343940$@net> Message-ID: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hi George, Suresh, Parminder, Adam and others What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of this emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at the IGF in Hyderabad. We discussed this with ISOC and BASIS at the May open consultations on the IGF meetinog in Hyderabad. And we recognised that a number of governments should be brought in. I was in Nairobi a few weeks ago and heard an incredible talk by Dr Bitanga Ndemo, permanent secretary to the Coms ministry on the very exciting developments around broadband access that the Kenyan government is spearheading with other countries in East Africa like Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.. The initiative is impressive because it has taken on board the history of failure in this area in the past and is mindful of the chain of connectivity from submarine cables through to the last mile as well as looking at the regional as well as national and local dimensions of broadband access.. Kenya was one of the first African countries to liberalise VoIP, for example.. And if this East African initiative succeeds it could have a knock on effect through Africa. I imagine the Indian, Egyptian, Japanese, Brazilian and Swiss governments may also be willing to participate as core partners to judge from their previous and future participation in the IGF and WSIS processes. The idea is not to make the process unwieldy by bringing on too many partners prior to the announcement, but to try and ensure that a small number of each stakeholder group is involved. I think there would be space to address the national levels of implementation and monitoring like a national scorecard as George suggests by using the announcment at the IGF to put this in motion for reportback at the Cairo IGF. As well as the suggestions Suresh, Karl and others have made. The idea is not so much to have a workshop as a multi-stakeholder presentation of the manifesto in a kind of special event at the IGF.. Obviously this manifesto would not be anything the IGF should have to formally endorse. But stakeholders could be asked to add their names to it. If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. Perhaps a small working group of interested participants from the IGC could work on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make it more manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks facilitates this process. Willie Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Suresh Ramasubramanian" ,"'Adam Peake'" Subject: RE: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see 10 presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to these goals? George At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the incumbent >telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, and not trusting >each other to peer on the other etc) do get addressed at a local level by > >1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on >discussions > >2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom / >consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely (and >with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh yes, and >media attention to these issues. > >Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of free / >cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing out CDs with >ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I remember picking one >up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for example..) > >But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local issues and >require local knowledge, local coordination. Global coordination in these >areas would be much more valuable in sharing experiences, and developing a >set of shared best practices (nothing on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's >declaration of independence of cyberspace) > > Suresh > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to >> >> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these >> issues, and it is potentially a very useful >> document. >> >> I want to go a step further. Granted that there >> is an evolving consensus regarding issues >> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is >> this something to start a national scorecard on? >> Is it something to be followed up at the national >> level in all countries? I fear that continuing >> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the >> most part, the converted preaching to the >> converted. >> >> This is an area, where in general you have an >> alignment of civil society, the Internet >> community, and most of the business community. >> On the other side, generally, you have >> governments and businesses (often telcos) that >> have monopoly or controlling positions. >> >> At some point, words don't go further in an >> alignment like that. What can be done further? >> >> George > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Thu Jun 5 16:18:38 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:18:38 EDT Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI Message-ID: Dear All -- My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a "troll" as someting derived from Teutonic mythology: "A supernatural being, conceived sometimes as a dwarf, sometimes as a giant, fabled to inhabit caves, hills, and like places." What, pray is the meaning of insulting someone as a "troll" -- as if this were the ultimate putdown ? Yet another manifestation of the surrealism increasingly characteristic of discussions on this list ? Rony Koven ************** Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jun 5 16:53:25 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:53:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A2E4BF3-97FD-40A4-A8EB-A0FA3948DD6B@psg.com> hi, while i disagree with anyone having called anyone on this list a troll (borders on bad netiquette), in the email context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." so, if anything, it is the Internet that is surreal, not just this list. a. On 5 Jun 2008, at 22:18, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > Dear All -- > > My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a "troll" as someting > derived from Teutonic mythology: "A supernatural being, conceived > sometimes as a dwarf, sometimes as a giant, fabled to inhabit caves, > hills, and like places." > > What, pray is the meaning of insulting someone as a "troll" -- as if > this were the ultimate putdown ? > > Yet another manifestation of the surrealism increasingly > characteristic of discussions on this list ? > > Rony Koven > > > ************** > Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler > Florence" on AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4? > &NCID=aolfod00030000000002) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 5 22:04:59 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:04:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <20080606020459.GB8270@hserus.net> wcurrie at apc.org [05/06/08 20:03 +0000]: >If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. Perhaps >a small working group of interested participants from the IGC could work >on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make it more >manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks facilitates this >process. An excellent suggestion. And if, after your manifesto is launched, you'd like individuals to sign it, please count me in. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jun 6 06:07:36 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:07:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <000f01c8c72a$6e66bdc0$4b343940$@net> <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <48490C68.4000600@wzb.eu> How exciting! I very much support this initiative and to get the caucus involved. jeanette wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > Hi George, Suresh, Parminder, Adam and others > > What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of this emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at the IGF in Hyderabad. We discussed this with ISOC and BASIS at the May open consultations on the IGF meetinog in Hyderabad. And we recognised that a number of governments should be brought in. I was in Nairobi a few weeks ago and heard an incredible talk by Dr Bitanga Ndemo, permanent secretary to the Coms ministry on the very exciting developments around broadband access that the Kenyan government is spearheading with other countries in East Africa like Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.. The initiative is impressive because it has taken on board the history of failure in this area in the past and is mindful of the chain of connectivity from submarine cables through to the last mile as well as looking at the regional as well as national and local dimensions of broadband access.. Kenya was one of the first African countries to liberalise VoIP, for example.. And if this East African initiative succeeds it could have a knock on effect through Africa. > > I imagine the Indian, Egyptian, Japanese, Brazilian and Swiss governments may also be willing to participate as core partners to judge from their previous and future participation in the IGF and WSIS processes. The idea is not to make the process unwieldy by bringing on too many partners prior to the announcement, but to try and ensure that a small number of each stakeholder group is involved. > > I think there would be space to address the national levels of implementation and monitoring like a national scorecard as George suggests by using the announcment at the IGF to put this in motion for reportback at the Cairo IGF. As well as the suggestions Suresh, Karl and others have made. The idea is not so much to have a workshop as a multi-stakeholder presentation of the manifesto in a kind of special event at the IGF.. Obviously this manifesto would not be anything the IGF should have to formally endorse. But stakeholders could be asked to add their names to it. > > If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. Perhaps a small working group of interested participants from the IGC could work on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make it more manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks facilitates this process. > > Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky > > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Suresh Ramasubramanian" ,"'Adam Peake'" > Subject: RE: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > > I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local > knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. > > So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or > disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that > have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean > grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular > successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see > 10 presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. > > We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what > policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about > implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or > use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to > these goals? > > George > > > At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the incumbent >> telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, and not trusting >> each other to peer on the other etc) do get addressed at a local level by >> >> 1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on >> discussions >> >> 2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom / >> consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely (and >> with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh yes, and >> media attention to these issues. >> >> Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of free / >> cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing out CDs with >> ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I remember picking one >> up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for example..) >> >> But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local issues and >> require local knowledge, local coordination. Global coordination in these >> areas would be much more valuable in sharing experiences, and developing a >> set of shared best practices (nothing on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's >> declaration of independence of cyberspace) >> >> Suresh >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >>> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to >>> >>> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these >>> issues, and it is potentially a very useful >>> document. >>> >>> I want to go a step further. Granted that there >>> is an evolving consensus regarding issues >>> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is >>> this something to start a national scorecard on? >>> Is it something to be followed up at the national >>> level in all countries? I fear that continuing >>> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the >>> most part, the converted preaching to the >>> converted. >>> >>> This is an area, where in general you have an >>> alignment of civil society, the Internet >>> community, and most of the business community. >>> On the other side, generally, you have >>> governments and businesses (often telcos) that >>> have monopoly or controlling positions. >>> >>> At some point, words don't go further in an >>> alignment like that. What can be done further? >>> >>> George >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Jun 6 05:39:23 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:39:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <20080606020459.GB8270@hserus.net> References: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080606020459.GB8270@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080606093928.EDC2F52C2B3@mail.gn.apc.org> hi all At 03:04 06/06/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >wcurrie at apc.org [05/06/08 20:03 +0000]: >>If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. Perhaps >>a small working group of interested participants from the IGC could work >>on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make it more >>manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks facilitates this >>process. thanks willie.. i'm happy to put some time into this - and in fact, would have been in any case.. i'll get started on this sometime next week.. ikaren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 6 11:58:49 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:58:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to assist development? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB776E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Below is the combined list of a set of issues (from previous posts) that Suresh an I seem to feel would be worthy of discussion, and better yet, action, by members of the group. George: All of these issues are "worth discussing" and acting on as Internet governance issues but not all of them are a good fit for a global forum. The irony here is that you and one or two others are always accusing this group of having its head in the clouds. And yet what you propose below is a far, far more ambitious take on the IGF or IGC agenda than anything anyone else here has proposed, except perhaps for IGP and APC. If we agree on that larger view of IG, then great. Welcome to the club, maybe we should be working more closely together and you should reassess your apparent assumption that what goes on here is hostile to what you believe in. Also, McTim and others are always asserting that the caucus and IGF venues are discussing things when the real action is in some other venue, such as the RIRs. And yet many of the issues you raise (see comment below) are national regulatory issues or international trade in services issues. Still, as the only integrated arena for putting those issues together, I agree they should be discussed here. You ask: Are other members of this group mobilizing action in these directions? Yes. Many of us already are discussing, analyzing and working on these topics; e.g., you mention content filtering and net neutrality and IGP has done both IGF workshops and published papers on that. (Which Suresh, acting as always out of purely personal spite, dismisses). You mention privacy and anonymity and the same applies. So this sudden discovery of the Internet governance agenda is a bit puzzling. Anyway, of course we and the IGF should be discussing many of these topics. More specific comments below * Last mile unbundling This is important, but it is a domestic telecommunication policy issue. Please tell me how you think a group focused on global governance can affect it. People who want highly involved discussions of those issues can find them in any TPRC conference (www.tprc.org ) or International Telecommunication Society (ITS) meeting (next one's in Montreal this month). There are also nationally focused media reform groups (I know most about ones in the US of course) that talk about such things. OECD is a big advocate of loop unbundling. * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls This is important, too. It has some connection to global governance because there is a WTO agreement on trade in basic telecom services which includes Internet services. It calls for more open and competitive service provision and openness to foreign ownership. Whether national governments adhere to that treaty, however, depends on them. Among some participants in civil society, however, there is a hostility to these things as they are categorized as evil "neoliberalism." * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players Ditto the points above. This is a WTO issue, is it not? * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to) Are you proposing a new international price regulation scheme? A new global antitrust enforcement scheme? Using the WTO? Details, please? * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources (And who don't trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point) Looks like a local issue to me. - Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet transactions, both national an international Looks like something that would require a new international treaty. - Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with general business licensing processes at the national level As you say, a national issue - Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based pricing of Internet access Hmmm, are you at all familiar with the decades and wrangling over cost-based regulation of telecom facilities? Competition has always proven to be a better method of reducing costs, and the imposition of cost-based utility regulation schemes is almost always inimical to and inconsistent with robust competition and open market entry. Also developing countries have serious institutional capacity problems when a tiny regulatory agency tries to set the prices and monitor the costs of a gigantic national telecom monopoly. - A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs on the other hand. Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections Good ideas, all. Again, these are things that are best pursued via free trade in services arrangements. - Issues of filtering content at the national level IGP has proposed a global principle of Net Neutrality that deals with this question. - Permissive policies for anonymous communication - Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for protecting confidentiality of communication Good luck on that, the trend is in precisely the opposite direction, This by the way is an issue that will impact more and more on RIRs and addressing policy, because addresses are the way to track people down. And tell me again where do you stand on the DNS Whois debate? ;-) - Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP See above - Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities through training and facilities the ability to identify prosecute and convict spammers More generally, attempts to secure the Internet are attracting a lot of attention here and among civil society groups IGP research and comment has been moving into those issues for some the past 18 months. these are issues that by and large unite civil society, the Internet community, and the business community. I favor finding alliances with business when possible. But this is not true of privacy (see 6 years of Whois debate, or the attempts by brand owners to violate net neutrality by using ISPs to police copyright). In general, your agenda overlooks one of the key drivers of global IG policy and that is the battle over the exclusivity and scope of intellectual property protection. There will be a fissure between CS and PS as long as businesses are wiling to sacrifice individual rights for brand protection. But yes, on issues of open and competitive service provision and free expression and some privacy issues we should be able to find common ground with business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jun 6 22:50:51 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:50:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI In-Reply-To: <182AF003-6A93-46E0-83FB-0A4A892229BA@psg.com> References: <004701c8c752$d4311010$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> <182AF003-6A93-46E0-83FB-0A4A892229BA@psg.com> Message-ID: <1212807051.4849f78bddc4d@heimail.unige.ch> Hi Quoting Avri Doria : > > On 5 Jun 2008, at 23:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no > > further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple > > declaration > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > > concerning > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > > i can certainly support this statement. I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, and move on. There plainly is not going to be consensus on changing the charter to address the one issue (although a broader review in light of experience might be merited someday) or anything else, so belaboring tthis further would just build up more bad boogyjoogy and impede future dialogue and cooperation. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 7 02:11:32 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:41:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <1212807051.4849f78bddc4d@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> > > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no > > > further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple > > > declaration > > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > > > concerning > > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > i can certainly support this statement. > > I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future nomcoms > should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, and move on. I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it meant. (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and thats why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be doing the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be harming it, for reasons stated below) The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines. Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a clear censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring. I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the nomcom anymore on this issue. Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. However, this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this nomcom did follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied within the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy, without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of civil society'.) Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as could ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on each and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the group picking up the sense of the group). When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation"... it was clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated with IGIs in describing our under-representation. And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most clearly by the statement "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation". What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of CS nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group clearly meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC, when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give some clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further obfuscation on the issue. So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - and it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement). I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all this. 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jun 7 06:00:10 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:00:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > are we > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > clearly > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it selections? 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Jun 7 06:27:22 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:27:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> Message-ID: On 6/7/08 6:00 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: > >> >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message >> are we >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group >> clearly >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it > selections? I think this was covered in paragraph 14. Ok, so we have two sides insisting on polar opposite solutions that have not been and probably will not be acceptable to a number of others, and also insisting that we continue talking about this despite pleas from others to please make it stop. My suggestion is that those who wish to continue the debate and work toward an unambiguous resolution now form a working group, take it off list, sort out the issues, and report back to the full igc with recommendations for collective adoption. Everyone wins, no? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 7 07:14:52 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:44:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <484870799-1212693016-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1152048737-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <20080607111505.1EDB267828@smtp1.electricembers.net> > What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of this > emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at the > IGF in Hyderabad. Willie/ Karen I find the APC's paper on 'access' discussions at IGF Rio very good, and very useful. I should be able to support any manifesto that comes out of it... I am happy to be of any help in doing an IGC WG on this. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 1:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > 'Adam Peake' > Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > Hi George, Suresh, Parminder, Adam and others > > What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of this > emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at the > IGF in Hyderabad. We discussed this with ISOC and BASIS at the May open > consultations on the IGF meetinog in Hyderabad. And we recognised that a > number of governments should be brought in. I was in Nairobi a few weeks > ago and heard an incredible talk by Dr Bitanga Ndemo, permanent secretary > to the Coms ministry on the very exciting developments around broadband > access that the Kenyan government is spearheading with other countries in > East Africa like Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.. The initiative is > impressive because it has taken on board the history of failure in this > area in the past and is mindful of the chain of connectivity from > submarine cables through to the last mile as well as looking at the > regional as well as national and local dimensions of broadband access.. > Kenya was one of the first African countries to liberalise VoIP, for > example.. And if this East African initiative succeeds it could have a > knock on effect through Africa. > > I imagine the Indian, Egyptian, Japanese, Brazilian and Swiss governments > may also be willing to participate as core partners to judge from their > previous and future participation in the IGF and WSIS processes. The idea > is not to make the process unwieldy by bringing on too many partners prior > to the announcement, but to try and ensure that a small number of each > stakeholder group is involved. > > I think there would be space to address the national levels of > implementation and monitoring like a national scorecard as George suggests > by using the announcment at the IGF to put this in motion for reportback > at the Cairo IGF. As well as the suggestions Suresh, Karl and others have > made. The idea is not so much to have a workshop as a multi-stakeholder > presentation of the manifesto in a kind of special event at the IGF.. > Obviously this manifesto would not be anything the IGF should have to > formally endorse. But stakeholders could be asked to add their names to > it. > > If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. Perhaps > a small working group of interested participants from the IGC could work > on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make it more > manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks facilitates this > process. > > Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky > > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Suresh Ramasubramanian" > ,"'Adam Peake'" > Subject: RE: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > > I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local > knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. > > So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or > disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that > have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean > grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular > successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see > 10 presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. > > We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what > policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about > implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or > use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to > these goals? > > George > > > At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the incumbent > >telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, and not trusting > >each other to peer on the other etc) do get addressed at a local level by > > > >1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on > >discussions > > > >2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom / > >consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely (and > >with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh yes, and > >media attention to these issues. > > > >Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of > free / > >cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing out CDs with > >ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I remember picking > one > >up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for example..) > > > >But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local issues > and > >require local knowledge, local coordination. Global coordination in > these > >areas would be much more valuable in sharing experiences, and developing > a > >set of shared best practices (nothing on the grand scale John Perry > Barlow's > >declaration of independence of cyberspace) > > > > Suresh > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > >> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > >> > >> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these > >> issues, and it is potentially a very useful > >> document. > >> > >> I want to go a step further. Granted that there > >> is an evolving consensus regarding issues > >> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is > >> this something to start a national scorecard on? > >> Is it something to be followed up at the national > >> level in all countries? I fear that continuing > >> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the > >> most part, the converted preaching to the > >> converted. > >> > >> This is an area, where in general you have an > >> alignment of civil society, the Internet > >> community, and most of the business community. > >> On the other side, generally, you have > >> governments and businesses (often telcos) that > >> have monopoly or controlling positions. > >> > >> At some point, words don't go further in an > >> alignment like that. What can be done further? > >> > >> George > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 7 07:17:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:47:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> > > > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > > are we > > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > > clearly > > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it > selections? Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little while earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: > > > > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > > are we > > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > > clearly > > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it > selections? > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 7 07:42:19 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:42:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <1212807051.4849f78bddc4d@heimail.unige.ch> <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hullo Parminder, On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Parminder wrote: > > The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines. > Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment > proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a clear > censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring. > It may "look" like that to you, but no one has moved that the nomcom be censured. > I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an > email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the > nomcom anymore on this issue. > Why is that relevant to the two motions at hand? > Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this > nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is SOULD have been done, according to the charter, not "could". accepted. However, > this is the not the reason behind the above censure. There is no motion of censure. Also this nomcom did > follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > except rule #5, oh, and someone mentioned rule #3 wasn't followed either. > There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied within > the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be > civil society - Now I am confused. If the previous nomcom stated it, then it's not implied, it's stated. I agree that nominees should have be CS (at least on some level). For example, when a previous nomcom chose PW as a nominee, they did so because of his CS status. that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I > am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy, > without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when > Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of > civil society'.) > very red herrings ignored. > Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance > institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as could > ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks > back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on each > and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the > group picking up the sense of the group). Agreed, the statement we made was contentious, the nomcom should have realised that and NOT gone any farther than down that road. > What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally > associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of CS > nominees for the MAG. Here is a question I have asked you repeatedly, (and never gotten an answer). If your sentence above is true, then why have we nominated someone "centrally associated with" an IGI to serve on the first MAG AND the nomcom THIS year nominated a full time staff member of an IGI? Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the > expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our > CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. see above, we have done it twice. > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group clearly > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > Can you do your job as coordinator and count the support for each motion? IIRC, if there are 10 supporters the motion goes forward. The motion I made several weeks ago has close to 10 supporters. The motion on a statement will probably get 10 easily. I support BD's latest motion, which is to form an ad hoc sub goup as described in the charter. I also volunteer to be on this ad-hoc sub-group. > We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC, > when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes > up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear > views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible > intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give some > clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > obfuscation on the issue. > > So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - and > it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of > chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue > that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give > the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for > those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement). a sub-group should be able to do that. > > I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of > feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue > strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time > (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from > the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all this. > One of the reasons I argued for a 4th SH group, is that they are not being welcomed (by this CS group at least) as CS, so in order that they are adequately represented, I felt that they should be a 4th group. They are certainly not gov nor are they PS (nor are they examples of IGO's, as Milton would have it, (tho some of them are international in scope, some are not). If they ARE CS, AND we get them a separate SH grouping, this increases the number of CS representatives, thus offsetting the 50% of MAG seats given to gov'ts. Several years of experience as a staff member of an IGI and many years experience as a member of protocol and numbering policy communities have given me the certainty that these bodies operate as CS. If you would just join one of these communities, I think you would see what I mean. -- 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jun 7 08:18:22 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:18:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <44B2F898-E147-4B18-AEE6-986D06A1C434@psg.com> Hi, Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your message. As I mentioned in an email along time of ago, I thought we made a mistake in not following our rules (all of the other issues are irrelevant to me - at this point anyway). I think we have a procedural problem that needs to fixed if his group is ever going to try and use a nomcom process again and that is that we follow the rules: - have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules. 3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. (i have already admitted giving bad advice on this one, i thought it could work without one and think now that i was wrong) - publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5) 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made While is debatable whether there was time for a full discussion of the criteria before the decisions were made, it is also the case that the criteria were not published until after the decision were made. I have heard no one make the claim that they were not published because they did not have time. And while I think the time for discussion might be limited in some cases limited, i think that before the fact publication is possible in almost all cases. As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we would do our best to follow our rules in the future. Though I guess if we cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to call for a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules. And while a lot of what you have to say personally about your beliefs on whether ITC organizations are different then ITC individuals and whether they should or should not be allowed to ...., what is most important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of the caucus is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we will abide by the rules in the future. and i agree with Bill, people who want to continue this discussion of whether being paid by an ITC org creates an impenetrable barrier to participating as CS should do so in a group that comes back with a resolution to that conundrum when they reach one. On 7 Jun 2008, at 07:17, Parminder wrote: > >>> >>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message >>> are we >>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group >>> clearly >>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. >> >> >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should >> follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes >> it >> selections? > > > Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little > while > earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to. > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> >> On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message >>> are we >>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group >>> clearly >>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. >> >> >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should >> follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes >> it >> selections? >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Sat Jun 7 11:22:19 2008 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:22:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <1212807051.4849f78bddc4d@heimail.unige.ch> <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: This year's IGC nomcom was challenging and did have its drama. It raised important issues and revealed that there are significant differences of opinion.. BUT, the report was issued and the names forwarded to the secretarait (I hope). That being said, if issues remain - might I suggest they not be discussed not under the umbrella of a single subject line - but a variety of different ones. That way, it makes it easier for those of us who don't have the time or energy to reply real-time as some on her seem to be able to to. What i'm trying to say - is that the thread is becoming too complex, and too hard to track for those who are new as well as those who can't follow in real time. The issue are important - but, there comes a point where one should recognizes that no consensus is possible on one or more topics. In that case - do we agree to disagree/move-on , take it to a vote, or some combination of both. regards Robert On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Parminder wrote: >> > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no >> > > further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple >> > > declaration >> > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >> > > concerning >> > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. >> > i can certainly support this statement. >> >> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future nomcoms >> should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, and move on. > > I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it meant. > > (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and thats > why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be doing > the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be harming > it, for reasons stated below) > > The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines. > Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment > proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a clear > censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring. > > I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an > email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the > nomcom anymore on this issue. > > Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this > nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. However, > this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this nomcom did > follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > > There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied within > the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be > civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I > am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy, > without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when > Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of > civil society'.) > > Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance > institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as could > ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks > back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on each > and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the > group picking up the sense of the group). > > > When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and > 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation"... it was > clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated with IGIs in > describing our under-representation. > > And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most clearly > by the statement > > "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > > What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally > associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of CS > nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the > expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our > CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group clearly > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC, > when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes > up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear > views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible > intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give some > clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > obfuscation on the issue. > > So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - and > it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of > chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue > that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give > the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for > those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement). > > I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of > feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue > strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time > (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from > the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all this. > > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 7 13:26:45 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:56:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <44B2F898-E147-4B18-AEE6-986D06A1C434@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080607172654.1508C67860@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri > Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus > following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your > message. (snip) >what is most important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of >the caucus is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we >will abide by the rules in the future. Yes, I am responsible for the caucus following the rules. Some rules were not followed, non-voting chair (rule 3) and publishing criterion/ IGC's review whenever possible (rule 5).... each had a different context, and situation, in this nomcom's working. I can, and since these have been raised by you, will, discuss them. There are others - including group members - responsible for this as well, apart from some specific constraints, but about that later. The more basic point is that the discussion of the last week about whether nomcom did a shameful act, and my political thinking had seeped into its working, in not choosing some persons centrally connected to an IGI (internet governance institution) , and whether technical community is just all people, and so is CS, and we shd nominate just anyone who has some un-described 'CS credentials' and outlook, and encourage nomination of chiefs of IGI's etc..... cannot suddenly be converted into a simple issue whether the coordinator is ready to pledge that he will do his best to see that rules are followed in the future. Why wouldn't I just agree to this statement if it were really as straight forward as that? It is too much of an underhand deal for me to just take it on its face value and go with it... So, while I will in separate emails explain the issues around each of the above rules, what is most important is that we are clear about the basic rule in question. Whether or not IGI reps can be nominated by IGC for MAG. I take it, and nomcom took it, that the IGC expressed its clear view on this issue in February discussions and statement. So, in the same way that a nomcom wont feel it necessary to write down a rule that a government or google policy person is not CS and cannot be nominated by IGC they took this decision on IGI reps. (interestingly, most of those who are opposed to this nomcom decision did mention in the last weeks discussion that even a government or google's policy guy can be CS nominee, so should a rule regarding that also be written now. We then will have to write a lot of very basic stuff.) Otherwise they did follow the rules of the earlier nomcom - just, since the existing rules said the nominee shd be CS, they took the CS identity decision on some people centrally associated with IGIs. Beyond this, if we really need the next nomcom to write down this level of rule as well, it is quite hypocritical not to agree to lay down the rule for it, NOW... because, we know this will come up very soon again. Looks silly to say, hey you should follow rules, but we wont tell you what the rule is. During the feb statement as well, some people wanted to not to carry on with the discussion on this issue, but I insisted because I thought it was important for the group to know where it stood on it. These members, no doubt with best intentions, were of the view that it is not possible to discuss this issue in the middle of the process, and that it should be discussed some other time. But when it is now that 'some other time', we cant say it, well no not now, it should be discussed when we are in the middle of the process. That is quite impractical. So, the real issue here is of IGI reps, and if we have to make a statement to uphold rules, we best also make the rule on this issue. This is for those who think the rule isn't already there, my view is that it is there and the nomcom followed it. Again this is the 'real rule' issue in question and discussion, I cant just pledge 'I will do best to see that the rules are followed in the future' when all the background suggests that it will be seen to mean that I agree that in this particular case the rule was not, or may not have been, followed. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 5:48 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > Hi, > > Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus > following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your > message. > > As I mentioned in an email along time of ago, I thought we made a > mistake in not following our rules (all of the other issues are > irrelevant to me - at this point anyway). I think we have a > procedural problem that needs to fixed if his group is ever going to > try and use a nomcom process again and that is that we follow the rules: > > - have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules. > > 3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each > nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve > as a chair, > it is recommended that a person has served in at least one > nomcom previously. > > (i have already admitted giving bad advice on this one, i thought > it could work > without one and think now that i was wrong) > > - publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5) > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be > reviewed by the caucus > whenever possible before decisions are made > > While is debatable whether there was time for a full discussion of the > criteria before the decisions were made, it is also the case that the > criteria were not published until after the decision were made. I > have heard no one make the claim that they were not published because > they did not have time. And while I think the time for discussion > might be limited in some cases limited, i think that before the fact > publication is possible in almost all cases. > > As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we > would do our best to follow our rules in the future. Though I guess > if we cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to > call for a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules. > > And while a lot of what you have to say personally about your beliefs > on whether ITC organizations are different then ITC individuals and > whether they should or should not be allowed to ...., what is most > important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of the caucus > is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we will > abide by the rules in the future. > > and i agree with Bill, people who want to continue this discussion of > whether being paid by an ITC org creates an impenetrable barrier to > participating as CS should do so in a group that comes back with a > resolution to that conundrum when they reach one. > > > > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 07:17, Parminder wrote: > > > > >>> > >>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > >>> are we > >>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > >>> clearly > >>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > >> > >> > >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > >> follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes > >> it > >> selections? > > > > > > Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little > > while > > earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to. > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > >> > >> > >> On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > >>> are we > >>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > >>> clearly > >>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > >> > >> > >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > >> follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes > >> it > >> selections? > >> > >> a. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 7 22:38:18 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:38:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [JoCI] Vol. 4 No. 1 (2008) Special Issue: Wireless Networking for Communities, Citizens and the Public Interest Message-ID: <029e01c8c910$b9902330$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> (sorry for the duplication!) byte The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue Vol. 4 No. 1 (2008) Special Issue: Wireless Networking for Communities, Citizens and the Public Interest at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest. Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics Phone 604-602-0624 Fax 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com The Journal of Community Informatics Vol. 4 No. 1 (2008) Special Issue: Wireless Networking for Communities, Citizens and the Public Interest Table of Contents http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/19 Editorial -------- Is There A Wireless Community Informatics? Michael Gurstein Introduction to the Special Issue: Wireless Networking for Communities, Citizens and the Public Interest Alison Powell, Sascha D. Meinrath Articles -------- Time, space and the wireless community network Marco Adria Towards Place-peer community and civic bandwidth: a case study in community wireless networking Hanna Hye-Na Cho Anytime? Anywhere?: Reframing Debates Around Community and Municipal Wireless Networking Laura Forlano Keeping Promises: Municipal communities struggle to fulfill promises to narrow the digital divide with Municipal Community Wireless Networks Andrea H Tapia, Julio Angel Ortiz Notes from the field -------- The i-REACH Project in Cambodia Kim Dara, Long Dimanche, Seán Ó Siochrú Metropolitan Wi-Fi Research Network at the Los Angeles State Historic Park Vidyut Samanta, Chase Laurelle Alexandria Knowles, Jeff Burke, Fabian Wagmister, Deborah Estrin Setting Long Distance WiFi Records: Proofing Solutions for Rural Connectivity Ermanno Pietrosemoli Saving Toronto Hydro Telecom's One Zone project from itself: alternative models for urban public wireless infrastructure Andrew Clement, Amelia Potter Notes and cases from the field (practitioners) -------- Life after Connectivity: the Impact of the Community Mesh Network in Mahavilachchiya, Sri Lanka’s E-village Alisha Bhagat In Memoriam -------- Steve Cisler: an appreciation Eduardo Villanueva ________________________________________________________________________ The Journal of Community Informatics http://www.ci-journal.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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 7 22:38:18 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:38:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <48490C68.4000600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <029f01c8c910$c1f49330$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Willie, I'd be interested in working on this on behalf of the Global Telecentre Alliance which willed itself into formal existance at a conference in Budapest a couple of weeks ago. I'm behind in my follow-up responsibilities in that context (I've been travelling since the conference) but I'd look to act as a conduit between this grouping and the GTA at least in the interim. Best to all, MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: June 6, 2008 3:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org Cc: George Sadowsky; Suresh Ramasubramanian; 'Adam Peake' Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > Hi George, Suresh, Parminder, Adam and others > > What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of > this emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at the IGF in Hyderabad. We discussed this with ISOC and BASIS at the May open consultations on the IGF meetinog in Hyderabad. And we recognised that a number of governments should be brought in. I was in Nairobi a few weeks ago and heard an incredible talk by Dr Bitanga Ndemo, permanent secretary to the Coms ministry on the very exciting developments around broadband access that the Kenyan government is spearheading with other countries in East Africa like Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.. The initiative is impressive because it has taken on board the history of failure in this area in the past and is mindful of the chain of connectivity from submarine cables through to the last mile as well as looking at the regional as well as national and local dimensions of broadband access.. Kenya was one of the first African countries to liberalise VoIP, for example.. And if this East African initiative succeeds it could have a knock on effect through Africa. > > I imagine the Indian, Egyptian, Japanese, Brazilian and Swiss > governments may also be willing to participate as core partners to judge from their previous and future participation in the IGF and WSIS processes. The idea is not to make the process unwieldy by bringing on too many partners prior to the announcement, but to try and ensure that a small number of each stakeholder group is involved. > > I think there would be space to address the national levels of > implementation and monitoring like a national scorecard as George suggests by using the announcment at the IGF to put this in motion for reportback at the Cairo IGF. As well as the suggestions Suresh, Karl and others have made. The idea is not so much to have a workshop as a multi-stakeholder presentation of the manifesto in a kind of special event at the IGF.. Obviously this manifesto would not be anything the IGF should have to formally endorse. But stakeholders could be asked to add their names to it. > > If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. > Perhaps a small working group of interested participants from the IGC > could work on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make > it more manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks > facilitates this process. > > Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky > > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Suresh > Ramasubramanian" ,"'Adam Peake'" > Subject: RE: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > > I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local > knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. > > So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or > disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that > have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean > grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular > successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see 10 > presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. > > We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what > policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about > implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or > use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to > these goals? > > George > > > At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the >> incumbent telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, >> and not trusting each other to peer on the other etc) do get >> addressed at a local level by >> >> 1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on >> discussions >> >> 2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom >> / consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely >> (and with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh >> yes, and media attention to these issues. >> >> Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of >> free / cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing >> out CDs with ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I >> remember picking one up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for >> example..) >> >> But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local >> issues and require local knowledge, local coordination. Global >> coordination in these areas would be much more valuable in sharing >> experiences, and developing a set of shared best practices (nothing >> on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's declaration of independence of >> cyberspace) >> >> Suresh >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >>> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet >>> to >>> >>> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these >>> issues, and it is potentially a very useful >>> document. >>> >>> I want to go a step further. Granted that there >>> is an evolving consensus regarding issues >>> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is >>> this something to start a national scorecard on? >>> Is it something to be followed up at the national >>> level in all countries? I fear that continuing >>> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the >>> most part, the converted preaching to the >>> converted. >>> >>> This is an area, where in general you have an >>> alignment of civil society, the Internet >>> community, and most of the business community. >>> On the other side, generally, you have >>> governments and businesses (often telcos) that >>> have monopoly or controlling positions. >>> >>> At some point, words don't go further in an >>> alignment like that. What can be done further? >>> >>> George >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 7 22:38:18 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:38:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <02a901c8c911$557f9230$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Parminder and all, Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the NomCom rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious discussion that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to my mind at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on principle. I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind was becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist (requiring for participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at least) than I consider to be its inherent value... As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice for resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to call for the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail in the clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > > > discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration > > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > > > concerning > > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > i can certainly support this statement. > > I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future > nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, > and move on. I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it meant. (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and thats why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be doing the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be harming it, for reasons stated below) The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines. Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a clear censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring. I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the nomcom anymore on this issue. Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. However, this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this nomcom did follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied within the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy, without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of civil society'.) Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as could ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on each and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the group picking up the sense of the group). When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation"... it was clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated with IGIs in describing our under-representation. And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most clearly by the statement "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation". What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of CS nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group clearly meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC, when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give some clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further obfuscation on the issue. So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - and it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement). I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all this. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 7 16:09:29 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:09:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: References: <1212807051.4849f78bddc4d@heimail.unige.ch> <20080607061141.5E98BE1528@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Robert, On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > This year's IGC nomcom was challenging and did have its drama. It > raised important issues and revealed that there are significant > differences of opinion.. BUT, the report was issued and the names > forwarded to the secretarait (I hope). > no argument here. > That being said, if issues remain - might I suggest they not be > discussed not under the umbrella of a single subject line - but a > variety of different ones. That way, it makes it easier for those of > us who don't have the time or energy to reply real-time as some on her > seem to be able to to. Well there are ~6 threads going on at the moment that touch on it. ;-) > > What i'm trying to say - is that the thread is becoming too complex, It's actually quite simple, and I think Avri summarised it well. "we have a procedural problem that needs to fixed if his group is ever going to try and use a nomcom process again and that is that we follow the rules:" That's the "basic" issue, as much as some would like it not to be. I would be happy to participate in a sub-group to sort out the issue that Parminder thinks is "the real" issue" AFTER we sort out our procedural one. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jun 7 16:06:38 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 06:06:38 +1000 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <02a901c8c911$557f9230$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we have been discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the report - and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and acted on. BEGIN QUOTE There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a number of issues arose which require further discussion and clarification. As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, and not well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation will be improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to consider. We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair -either voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes associated with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a smoother operation, include . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates details . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid employees of internet governance organisations . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on NomComs . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for future NomComs. If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom is appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. END QUOTE 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > Parminder and all, > > Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the > NomCom > rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious > discussion > that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to my > mind > at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on > principle. > > I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind was > becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist (requiring > for > participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at least) than > I > consider to be its inherent value... > > As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice for > resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to call > for > the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail in the > clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > > > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > > > > discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration > > > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > > > > concerning > > > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group. > > > i can certainly support this statement. > > > > I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future > > nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, > > and move on. > > I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it meant. > > (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and > thats > why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be doing > the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be harming > it, for reasons stated below) > > The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines. > Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment > proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a > clear > censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring. > > I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an > email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the > nomcom anymore on this issue. > > Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which > this > nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. However, > this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this nomcom did > follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > > There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied > within > the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be > civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I > am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy, > without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when > Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of > civil society'.) > > Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance > institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as > could > ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks > back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on > each > and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the > group picking up the sense of the group). > > > When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and > 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation"... it > was > clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated with IGIs > in > describing our under-representation. > > And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most > clearly > by the statement > > "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > > What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally > associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of > CS > nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the > expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our > CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > clearly > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC, > when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes > up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear > views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible > intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give > some > clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > obfuscation on the issue. > > So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - > and > it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of > chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue > that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give > the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for > those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement). > > I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of > feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue > strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time > (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from > the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all this. > > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008 > 11:17 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Jun 7 16:25:34 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:25:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Hi, Many of these things are spelled out in the nomcom procedures which are on the web, except for the new issue of employees of various sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve regional presentation. For the ost parts dealing with the issues was expected to be dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough. On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we > have been > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > report - > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > acted on. > > BEGIN QUOTE > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > clarification. > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, > and not > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > will be > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > consider. > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair - > either > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > associated > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > smoother > operation, include > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates > details > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid > employees of internet governance organisations > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on > NomComs > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for > future NomComs. > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom > is > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > END QUOTE > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> >> Parminder and all, >> >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the >> NomCom >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious >> discussion >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to >> my >> mind >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on >> principle. >> >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind >> was >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist >> (requiring >> for >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at >> least) than >> I >> consider to be its inherent value... >> >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice >> for >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to >> call >> for >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail >> in the >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >>>>> concerning >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the >>>>> group. >>>> i can certainly support this statement. >>> >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, >>> and move on. >> >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it >> meant. >> >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and >> thats >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be >> doing >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be >> harming >> it, for reasons stated below) >> >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom >> guidelines. >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter >> amendment >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a >> clear >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we >> censuring. >> >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon >> said in an >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf >> of the >> nomcom anymore on this issue. >> >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process >> which >> this >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. >> However, >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this >> nomcom did >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. >> >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied >> within >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person >> should be >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every >> time. I >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public >> policy, >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the >> situation when >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the >> behalf of >> civil society'.) >> >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet >> governance >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC >> as >> could >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few >> weeks >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus >> process on >> each >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and >> the >> group picking up the sense of the group). >> >> >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >> 2006 and >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of >> rotation"... it >> was >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated >> with IGIs >> in >> describing our under-representation. >> >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most >> clearly >> by the statement >> >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". >> >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people >> centrally >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's >> slate of >> CS >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs >> at the >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names >> on our >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. >> >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message >> are we >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group >> clearly >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. >> >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria >> with IGC, >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that >> comes >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's >> clear >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the >> ostensible >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to >> give >> some >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further >> obfuscation on the issue. >> >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real >> issue - >> and >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So >> instead of >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the >> only issue >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we >> just give >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is >> only for >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb >> statement). >> >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the >> drafting of >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will >> argue >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at >> one time >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also >> nominated from >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all >> this. >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: >> 6/7/2008 >> 11:17 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 7 16:45:17 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:45:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend In-Reply-To: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> Hi, (last was accidentally sent before i finished) Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which are on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which is called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve regional representation. For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. I.e the rule about: 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria would vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. Nomcoms fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria might vary between them. Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously they are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone. In another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year or more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they are used. It is my belief that for a nomcom to work, there needs to be a minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further guidance. Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty. I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. a. On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we > have been > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > report - > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > acted on. > > BEGIN QUOTE > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > clarification. > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, > and not > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > will be > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > consider. > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair - > either > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > associated > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > smoother > operation, include > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates > details > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid > employees of internet governance organisations > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on > NomComs > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for > future NomComs. > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom > is > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > END QUOTE > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> >> Parminder and all, >> >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the >> NomCom >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious >> discussion >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to >> my >> mind >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on >> principle. >> >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind >> was >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist >> (requiring >> for >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at >> least) than >> I >> consider to be its inherent value... >> >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice >> for >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to >> call >> for >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail >> in the >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions >>>>> concerning >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the >>>>> group. >>>> i can certainly support this statement. >>> >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, >>> and move on. >> >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it >> meant. >> >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and >> thats >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be >> doing >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be >> harming >> it, for reasons stated below) >> >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom >> guidelines. >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter >> amendment >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a >> clear >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we >> censuring. >> >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon >> said in an >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf >> of the >> nomcom anymore on this issue. >> >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process >> which >> this >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. >> However, >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this >> nomcom did >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. >> >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied >> within >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person >> should be >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every >> time. I >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public >> policy, >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the >> situation when >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the >> behalf of >> civil society'.) >> >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet >> governance >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC >> as >> could >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few >> weeks >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus >> process on >> each >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and >> the >> group picking up the sense of the group). >> >> >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in >> 2006 and >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of >> rotation"... it >> was >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated >> with IGIs >> in >> describing our under-representation. >> >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most >> clearly >> by the statement >> >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". >> >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people >> centrally >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's >> slate of >> CS >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs >> at the >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names >> on our >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. >> >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message >> are we >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group >> clearly >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. >> >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria >> with IGC, >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that >> comes >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's >> clear >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the >> ostensible >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to >> give >> some >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further >> obfuscation on the issue. >> >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real >> issue - >> and >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So >> instead of >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the >> only issue >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we >> just give >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is >> only for >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb >> statement). >> >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the >> drafting of >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will >> argue >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at >> one time >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also >> nominated from >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all >> this. >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: >> 6/7/2008 >> 11:17 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 7 17:34:29 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:34:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend In-Reply-To: <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> Message-ID: <049401c8c8e6$476cb900$8b00a8c0@IAN> Avri wrote >I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each nomcom >is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a matter >of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the argument( the future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil society come to mind) But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken this discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest that the easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to take some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review all of this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust the random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email archives of this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it will be just fine. I doubt it. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: 08 June 2008 06:45 > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > resend > > Hi, > > (last was accidentally sent before i finished) > > Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which are > on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which is > called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from > particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve > regional representation. > > For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be > dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. I.e the > rule about: > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria would > vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. Nomcoms > fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria might > vary between them. > > Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously they > are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone. In > another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have > undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year or > more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they are > used. It is my belief that for a nomcom to work, there needs to be a > minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that > guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it > before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further > guidance. Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty. > > I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each > nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is > not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > > > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw > > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we > > have been > > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > > report - > > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > > acted on. > > > > BEGIN QUOTE > > > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a > > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > > clarification. > > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, > > and not > > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > > will be > > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. > > > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > > consider. > > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to > > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair - > > either > > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in > > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > > associated > > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > > smoother > > operation, include > > > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates > > details > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid > > employees of internet governance organisations > > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on > > NomComs > > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for > > future NomComs. > > > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom > > is > > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > > > END QUOTE > > > > > > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > >> > >> > >> Parminder and all, > >> > >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the > >> NomCom > >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious > >> discussion > >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to > >> my > >> mind > >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on > >> principle. > >> > >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind > >> was > >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist > >> (requiring > >> for > >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at > >> least) than > >> I > >> consider to be its inherent value... > >> > >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice > >> for > >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to > >> call > >> for > >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail > >> in the > >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. > >> > >> MG > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > >> > >> > >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration > >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > >>>>> concerning > >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the > >>>>> group. > >>>> i can certainly support this statement. > >>> > >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future > >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, > >>> and move on. > >> > >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it > >> meant. > >> > >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and > >> thats > >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be > >> doing > >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be > >> harming > >> it, for reasons stated below) > >> > >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom > >> guidelines. > >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter > >> amendment > >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a > >> clear > >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we > >> censuring. > >> > >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon > >> said in an > >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf > >> of the > >> nomcom anymore on this issue. > >> > >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process > >> which > >> this > >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. > >> However, > >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this > >> nomcom did > >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > >> > >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied > >> within > >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person > >> should be > >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every > >> time. I > >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public > >> policy, > >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the > >> situation when > >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the > >> behalf of > >> civil society'.) > >> > >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet > >> governance > >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC > >> as > >> could > >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few > >> weeks > >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus > >> process on > >> each > >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and > >> the > >> group picking up the sense of the group). > >> > >> > >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > >> 2006 and > >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of > >> rotation"... it > >> was > >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated > >> with IGIs > >> in > >> describing our under-representation. > >> > >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most > >> clearly > >> by the statement > >> > >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical > >> standards > >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > >> representation > >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > >> > >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people > >> centrally > >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's > >> slate of > >> CS > >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs > >> at the > >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names > >> on our > >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > >> > >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > >> are we > >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > >> clearly > >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > >> > >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria > >> with IGC, > >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that > >> comes > >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's > >> clear > >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the > >> ostensible > >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to > >> give > >> some > >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > >> obfuscation on the issue. > >> > >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real > >> issue - > >> and > >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So > >> instead of > >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the > >> only issue > >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we > >> just give > >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is > >> only for > >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb > >> statement). > >> > >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the > >> drafting of > >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will > >> argue > >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at > >> one time > >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also > >> nominated from > >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all > >> this. > >> > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG. > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: > >> 6/7/2008 > >> 11:17 AM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008 > 11:17 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 7 21:13:10 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:13:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - Message-ID: The easiest way forward is to go forward. I suspect on the contrary the next nomcom will still remember/and if not be reminded. It's June & there's less than 30 days to the next IGF deadlines right. 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 06/07/08 5:34 PM >>> Avri wrote >I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each nomcom >is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a matter >of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the argument( the future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil society come to mind) But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken this discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest that the easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to take some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review all of this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust the random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email archives of this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it will be just fine. I doubt it. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: 08 June 2008 06:45 > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > resend > > Hi, > > (last was accidentally sent before i finished) > > Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which are > on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which is > called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from > particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve > regional representation. > > For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be > dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. I.e the > rule about: > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria would > vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. Nomcoms > fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria might > vary between them. > > Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously they > are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone. In > another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have > undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year or > more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they are > used. It is my belief that for a nomcom to work, there needs to be a > minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that > guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it > before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further > guidance. Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty. > > I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each > nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is > not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > > > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw > > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we > > have been > > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > > report - > > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > > acted on. > > > > BEGIN QUOTE > > > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a > > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > > clarification. > > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, > > and not > > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > > will be > > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. > > > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > > consider. > > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to > > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair - > > either > > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in > > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > > associated > > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > > smoother > > operation, include > > > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates > > details > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid > > employees of internet governance organisations > > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on > > NomComs > > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for > > future NomComs. > > > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom > > is > > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > > > END QUOTE > > > > > > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > >> > >> > >> Parminder and all, > >> > >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the > >> NomCom > >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious > >> discussion > >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to > >> my > >> mind > >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on > >> principle. > >> > >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind > >> was > >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist > >> (requiring > >> for > >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at > >> least) than > >> I > >> consider to be its inherent value... > >> > >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice > >> for > >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to > >> call > >> for > >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail > >> in the > >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. > >> > >> MG > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > >> > >> > >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration > >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > >>>>> concerning > >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the > >>>>> group. > >>>> i can certainly support this statement. > >>> > >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future > >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, > >>> and move on. > >> > >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it > >> meant. > >> > >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and > >> thats > >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be > >> doing > >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be > >> harming > >> it, for reasons stated below) > >> > >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom > >> guidelines. > >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter > >> amendment > >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a > >> clear > >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we > >> censuring. > >> > >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon > >> said in an > >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf > >> of the > >> nomcom anymore on this issue. > >> > >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process > >> which > >> this > >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. > >> However, > >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this > >> nomcom did > >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > >> > >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied > >> within > >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person > >> should be > >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every > >> time. I > >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public > >> policy, > >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the > >> situation when > >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the > >> behalf of > >> civil society'.) > >> > >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet > >> governance > >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC > >> as > >> could > >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few > >> weeks > >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus > >> process on > >> each > >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and > >> the > >> group picking up the sense of the group). > >> > >> > >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > >> 2006 and > >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of > >> rotation"... it > >> was > >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated > >> with IGIs > >> in > >> describing our under-representation. > >> > >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most > >> clearly > >> by the statement > >> > >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical > >> standards > >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > >> representation > >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > >> > >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people > >> centrally > >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's > >> slate of > >> CS > >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs > >> at the > >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names > >> on our > >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > >> > >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > >> are we > >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > >> clearly > >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > >> > >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria > >> with IGC, > >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that > >> comes > >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's > >> clear > >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the > >> ostensible > >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to > >> give > >> some > >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > >> obfuscation on the issue. > >> > >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real > >> issue - > >> and > >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So > >> instead of > >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the > >> only issue > >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we > >> just give > >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is > >> only for > >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb > >> statement). > >> > >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the > >> drafting of > >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will > >> argue > >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at > >> one time > >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also > >> nominated from > >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all > >> this. > >> > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG. > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: > >> 6/7/2008 > >> 11:17 AM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008 > 11:17 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 7 22:51:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:51:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend In-Reply-To: <049401c8c8e6$476cb900$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> <049401c8c8e6$476cb900$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77D5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Ian, I think you're right on target. Are you willing to serve as the independent Chair? If so, I nominate you. > -----Original Message----- > But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken this > discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next > Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest that the > easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to take > some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review all of > this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust the > random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process > history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email archives > of > this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it will be > just fine. I doubt it. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 8 06:48:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:18:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77D5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080608104837.A6AF56784E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Everyone What I am saying is that it is simplistic/ purposeless/ hypocritical to just declare that the next nomcom should publish its criteria beforehand knowing very well which exact point it will get stuck at... with the IGC not letting its view on this particular point known... To repeat, my view remains that the IGC made its view known in Feb. So either we affirm that the directions on this are already clear (my view) or make these direction clear now. If it is easier to understand that way ,just think of the nomcom we will constitute in a few months for IGF speakers... will it or will it not write down the criteria on persons closely related to Int gov institutions (IGIs)?? They will be damned if they will - either way, there will be an explosion of the same discussion which many feel either too uncomfortable or well...whatever, to clearly close out right now - and damned if they don't, because if any IGI person is either accepted or rejected it will be questioned in the same way it is being now.... My view again is that this level of criteria writing may not necessary... however the nomcom should certainly have clear directions from the IGC on this issue. The present nomcom took that such directions already exist.... if the group wants to reopen the issue, then that's its prerogative to do so. So what exactly are we solving by saying - well, next nomcom is instructed to pre-publish its criterion. Beyond this point of IGI reps which is the real issue of contention, we of course should all resolve that all rules are followed, and take particular note of issues like non-voting chair, and pre-publishing criteria. I am of course ready to take all the responsibility that is mine in this regard, and also so declare and resolve. As mentioned earlier both these issues have specific contexts in this nomcom exercise which I will explain later. To speak about these now will confuse the real issue being discussed. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 8 07:38:04 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:08:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend In-Reply-To: <049401c8c8e6$476cb900$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080608113818.86F97A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net> Ian > Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was > occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the argument( the > future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil > society come to mind) You may know that there is a charter amendment proposed by Mctim, and supported by a few others that "No disqualification can be made based upon the type of employment undertaken by members", when noncoms choose IGC reps. Is it possible/ right not to discuss the implications of such an amendment, and the situation it may put the next nomcom into??? During discussions around this proposal etc examples of gov employees and those with private sector companies with sufficient 'policy weight' were obviously discussed, as the issue becomes relevant in the above context. And many proposers of the amendments seemed to be of the view that it is fine to nominate even such persons as long as they had some undefined CS credentials. So, if I give Microsoft or google's example to characterize what such amendment can mean, I really don't see how it is silly, and I really do hope such characterizations for other people's email is used with discretion, if at all. As for tediousness, I came into these discussions only when it was absolutely necessary... there were people discussing a charter amendment, others proposing adopting a resolution (status of which I was not clear) and I only sent a few emails that I found absolutely necessary. And, before that, I went through the entire record of our discussions in Feb on the issue, and then the discussions before nomcom started to work. So, yes it is tedious, and I too have a good amount of other important work to do as well. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:04 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > resend > > Avri wrote > > >I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each > nomcom > >is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a matter > >of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. > > > Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was > occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the argument( the > future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil > society come to mind) > > But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken this > discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next > Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest that the > easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to take > some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review all of > this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust the > random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process > history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email archives > of > this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it will be > just fine. I doubt it. > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: 08 June 2008 06:45 > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > > resend > > > > Hi, > > > > (last was accidentally sent before i finished) > > > > Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which are > > on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which is > > called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from > > particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve > > regional representation. > > > > For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be > > dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. I.e the > > rule about: > > > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > > > This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria would > > vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. Nomcoms > > fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria might > > vary between them. > > > > Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously they > > are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone. In > > another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have > > undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year or > > more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they are > > used. It is my belief that for a nomcom to work, there needs to be a > > minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that > > guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it > > before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further > > guidance. Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty. > > > > I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each > > nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is > > not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. > > > > a. > > > > > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw > > > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we > > > have been > > > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > > > report - > > > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > > > acted on. > > > > > > BEGIN QUOTE > > > > > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a > > > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > > > clarification. > > > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested, > > > and not > > > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > > > will be > > > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken. > > > > > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > > > consider. > > > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to > > > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > > > > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair - > > > either > > > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in > > > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > > > associated > > > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > > > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > > > smoother > > > operation, include > > > > > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates > > > details > > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid > > > employees of internet governance organisations > > > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on > > > NomComs > > > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for > > > future NomComs. > > > > > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom > > > is > > > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > > > > > END QUOTE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > >> > > >> > > >> Parminder and all, > > >> > > >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the > > >> NomCom > > >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious > > >> discussion > > >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to > > >> my > > >> mind > > >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on > > >> principle. > > >> > > >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind > > >> was > > >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist > > >> (requiring > > >> for > > >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at > > >> least) than > > >> I > > >> consider to be its inherent value... > > >> > > >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice > > >> for > > >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to > > >> call > > >> for > > >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail > > >> in the > > >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. > > >> > > >> MG > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > >> > > >> > > >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > > >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration > > >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions > > >>>>> concerning > > >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the > > >>>>> group. > > >>>> i can certainly support this statement. > > >>> > > >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that future > > >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, > > >>> and move on. > > >> > > >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it > > >> meant. > > >> > > >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and > > >> thats > > >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be > > >> doing > > >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be > > >> harming > > >> it, for reasons stated below) > > >> > > >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom > > >> guidelines. > > >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter > > >> amendment > > >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a > > >> clear > > >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we > > >> censuring. > > >> > > >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon > > >> said in an > > >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf > > >> of the > > >> nomcom anymore on this issue. > > >> > > >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process > > >> which > > >> this > > >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. > > >> However, > > >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this > > >> nomcom did > > >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > > >> > > >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied > > >> within > > >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person > > >> should be > > >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every > > >> time. I > > >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom > > >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public > > >> policy, > > >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the > > >> situation when > > >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next, > > >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the > > >> behalf of > > >> civil society'.) > > >> > > >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet > > >> governance > > >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC > > >> as > > >> could > > >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few > > >> weeks > > >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for > > >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus > > >> process on > > >> each > > >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and > > >> the > > >> group picking up the sense of the group). > > >> > > >> > > >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > > >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in > > >> 2006 and > > >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of > > >> rotation"... it > > >> was > > >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated > > >> with IGIs > > >> in > > >> describing our under-representation. > > >> > > >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most > > >> clearly > > >> by the statement > > >> > > >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > > >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical > > >> standards > > >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > >> representation > > >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > > >> > > >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people > > >> centrally > > >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's > > >> slate of > > >> CS > > >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs > > >> at the > > >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names > > >> on our > > >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > > >> > > >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > > >> are we > > >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > > >> clearly > > >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > >> > > >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria > > >> with IGC, > > >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that > > >> comes > > >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's > > >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's > > >> clear > > >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above > > >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the > > >> ostensible > > >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to > > >> give > > >> some > > >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further > > >> obfuscation on the issue. > > >> > > >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real > > >> issue - > > >> and > > >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So > > >> instead of > > >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the > > >> only issue > > >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we > > >> just give > > >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is > > >> only for > > >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb > > >> statement). > > >> > > >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the > > >> drafting of > > >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will > > >> argue > > >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at > > >> one time > > >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also > > >> nominated from > > >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into all > > >> this. > > >> > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > > >> Checked by AVG. > > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: > > >> 6/7/2008 > > >> 11:17 AM > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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. > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008 > > 11:17 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 8 07:45:45 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:45:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607172654.1508C67860@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <44B2F898-E147-4B18-AEE6-986D06A1C434@psg.com> <20080607172654.1508C67860@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I'm only responding to your first mail, as there doesn't seem to be much new in the second, and I know folk are tired of so many mails. On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Parminder wrote: > > Avri > >> Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus >> following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your >> message. > (snip) >>what is most important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of >>the caucus is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we >>will abide by the rules in the future. > > Yes, I am responsible for the caucus following the rules. Some rules were > not followed, non-voting chair (rule 3) and publishing criterion/ IGC's > review whenever possible (rule 5).... each had a different context, and > situation, in this nomcom's working. I am curious as to how you know these things? A week ago, you wrote: "(I am speaking here in my personal capacity. However I must also tell that I was not part of any decision-making process of the recent nomcom, nor privy to their discussions.)" Please share what you know with the rest of us. Perhaps it will help us understand. I can, and since these have been raised > by you, will, discuss them. There are others - including group members - > responsible for this as well, apart from some specific constraints, but > about that later. > > The more basic point is that the discussion of the last week about whether > nomcom did a shameful act, and my political thinking had seeped into its > working, in not choosing some persons centrally connected to an IGI > (internet governance institution) , and whether technical community is just > all people Either you have misunderstood, or are intentionally mis-characterising our position. They are people, acting in various fora of "uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values" (the LSE definition of Civil Society). , and so is CS, and we shd nominate just anyone who has some > un-described 'CS credentials' That's what we are doing, I would prefer we nominate list members/charter signers, but that's a completely separate issue, probably not to be tackled right now. and outlook, and encourage nomination of > chiefs of IGI's etc..... not encourage, merely NOT exclude the possibility, do I need to remind you again that we have a precedent for such nominations? Your rhetorical mischaracterisation is getting boring, and creating lots of text to read, as one feels compelled to correct them. cannot suddenly be converted into a simple issue > whether the coordinator is ready to pledge that he will do his best to see > that rules are followed in the future. Why wouldn't I just agree to this > statement if it were really as straight forward as that? It is too much of > an underhand deal for me to just take it on its face value and go with it... > so... following our own rules is underhanded? I've already editorialized enough about the nomcoms actions, so will refrain from further inflaming the situation. > So, while I will in separate emails explain the issues around each of the > above rules, see above, how are you privy to this info? what is most important is that we are clear about the basic > rule in question. Whether or not IGI reps can be nominated by IGC for MAG. Like we have done in the past you mean, or like the nomcom did this year, despite their rule making against it? Our basic rules are spelled out in our charter and related pages. I > take it, and nomcom took it, that the IGC expressed its clear view on this > issue in February discussions and statement. So, in the same way that a > nomcom wont feel it necessary to write down a rule that a government or > google policy person is not CS If that person signs the charter, they have the same right to a nomination that you do. If you want to change the charter to eliminate this, please make such a motion. IIRC, the caucus in it's February statement didn't say, "the technical community isn't CS". Such a statement would have been too contentious and never gotten even the very, very rough consensus that the Feb. statement received. and cannot be nominated by IGC they took this > decision on IGI reps. (interestingly, most of those who are opposed to this > nomcom decision did mention in the last weeks discussion that even a > government or google's policy guy can be CS nominee, so should a rule > regarding that also be written now. We then will have to write a lot of very > basic stuff.) Otherwise they did follow the rules of the earlier nomcom - > just, since the existing rules said the nominee shd be CS, they took the CS > identity decision on some people centrally associated with IGIs. Which wasn't their decision to make, according to rule #5 AND they violated their own decision. Can you shed light on that one as well? > > Beyond this, if we really need the next nomcom to write down this level of > rule as well, it is quite hypocritical not to agree to lay down the rule for > it, NOW... because, we know this will come up very soon again. Looks silly > to say, hey you should follow rules, but we wont tell you what the rule is. the rules are on the nomcom page. They are quite clear to me. The ad hoc sub group can write any further rules, as the full caucus doesn't seem to have the patience for it. Are you in favor of an ad-hoc sub group to explore this? > > During the feb statement as well, some people wanted to not to carry on with > the discussion on this issue, but I insisted because I thought it was > important for the group to know where it stood on it. These members, no > doubt with best intentions, were of the view that it is not possible to > discuss this issue in the middle of the process, and that it should be > discussed some other time. But when it is now that 'some other time', we > cant say it, well no not now, it should be discussed when we are in the > middle of the process. That is quite impractical. > criteria should be given to the full caucus, as per the charter. > So, the real issue here is of IGI reps, and if we have to make a statement > to uphold rules, we best also make the rule on this issue. This is for those > who think the rule isn't already there, my view is that it is there and the > nomcom followed it. No, they didn't. They nominated a full time staff member of an IGI after they had exceeded their authority in making an exclusion of the very same type of person they nominated. >Again this is the 'real rule' issue in question as per Avri, it's irrelevant at the moment. May I inquire, what's the status of your counting? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 8 08:16:56 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:46:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend In-Reply-To: <20080608113818.86F97A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <049401c8c8e6$476cb900$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080608113818.86F97A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <001401c8c961$8cc72050$a65560f0$@net> The charter amendment McTim proposed is entirely within the letter and spirit of the charter, and in fact is simply a clarification of what the charter already provides for Additionally, I agree with Avri's previous email and her suggestions for a way forward Avri wrote: > Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus following > its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your message. > - have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules. > - publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5) > As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we would > do our best to follow our rules in the future. Though I guess if we > cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to call for > a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules. I would simply call it a fallback mechanism to ensure that the nomcom and nonvoting chair keep to the letter and spirit of the charter, whatever their political views. thanks suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > resend > > > Ian > > > Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was > > occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the > argument( the > > future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil > > society come to mind) > > You may know that there is a charter amendment proposed by Mctim, and > supported by a few others that "No disqualification can be made based > upon > the type of employment undertaken by members", when noncoms choose IGC > reps. > > Is it possible/ right not to discuss the implications of such an > amendment, > and the situation it may put the next nomcom into??? > > During discussions around this proposal etc examples of gov employees > and > those with private sector companies with sufficient 'policy weight' > were > obviously discussed, as the issue becomes relevant in the above context. > And > many proposers of the amendments seemed to be of the view that it is > fine to > nominate even such persons as long as they had some undefined CS > credentials. > > So, if I give Microsoft or google's example to characterize what such > amendment can mean, I really don't see how it is silly, and I really do > hope > such characterizations for other people's email is used with discretion, > if > at all. > > As for tediousness, I came into these discussions only when it was > absolutely necessary... there were people discussing a charter > amendment, > others proposing adopting a resolution (status of which I was not clear) > and > I only sent a few emails that I found absolutely necessary. And, before > that, I went through the entire record of our discussions in Feb on the > issue, and then the discussions before nomcom started to work. So, yes > it is > tedious, and I too have a good amount of other important work to do as > well. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:04 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - > > resend > > > > Avri wrote > > > > >I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each > > nomcom > > >is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a > matter > > >of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement. > > > > > > Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was > > occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the > argument( the > > future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil > > society come to mind) > > > > But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken > this > > discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next > > Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest > that the > > easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to > take > > some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review > all of > > this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust > the > > random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process > > history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email > archives > > of > > this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it > will be > > just fine. I doubt it. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > Sent: 08 June 2008 06:45 > > > To: Governance Caucus > > > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > - > > > resend > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > (last was accidentally sent before i finished) > > > > > > Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which > are > > > on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which > is > > > called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from > > > particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve > > > regional representation. > > > > > > For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be > > > dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus. I.e the > > > rule about: > > > > > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed > by > > > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > > > > > This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria > would > > > vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. > Nomcoms > > > fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria > might > > > vary between them. > > > > > > Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously > they > > > are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone. > In > > > another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have > > > undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year > or > > > more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they > are > > > used. It is my belief that for a nomcom to work, there needs to > be a > > > minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that > > > guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it > > > before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further > > > guidance. Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty. > > > > > > I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after > each > > > nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is > > > not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and > improvement. > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to > draw > > > > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters > we > > > > have been > > > > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the > > > > report - > > > > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and > > > > acted on. > > > > > > > > BEGIN QUOTE > > > > > > > > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, > and a > > > > number of issues arose which require further discussion and > > > > clarification. > > > > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, > untested, > > > > and not > > > > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation > > > > will be > > > > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is > taken. > > > > > > > > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to > > > > consider. > > > > We cannot see this happening without someone taking > responsibility to > > > > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work. > > > > > > > > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent > Chair - > > > > either > > > > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a > review in > > > > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes > > > > associated > > > > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, > > > > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a > > > > smoother > > > > operation, include > > > > > > > > . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria > > > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of > candidates > > > > details > > > > . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are > paid > > > > employees of internet governance organisations > > > > . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or > input on > > > > NomComs > > > > . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of > procedures for > > > > future NomComs. > > > > > > > > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next > NomCom > > > > is > > > > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved. > > > > > > > > END QUOTE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38 > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was > multistakeholding > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Parminder and all, > > > >> > > > >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" > the > > > >> NomCom > > > >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious > > > >> discussion > > > >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which > (to > > > >> my > > > >> mind > > > >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was > on > > > >> principle. > > > >> > > > >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my > mind > > > >> was > > > >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist > > > >> (requiring > > > >> for > > > >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at > > > >> least) than > > > >> I > > > >> consider to be its inherent value... > > > >> > > > >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual > practice > > > >> for > > > >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is > to > > > >> call > > > >> for > > > >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would > prevail > > > >> in the > > > >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here. > > > >> > > > >> MG > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further > > > >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple > declaration > > > >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive > decisions > > > >>>>> concerning > > > >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the > > > >>>>> group. > > > >>>> i can certainly support this statement. > > > >>> > > > >>> I second the motion. Learn from the experience, agree that > future > > > >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter > compliance, > > > >>> and move on. > > > >> > > > >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it > > > >> meant. > > > >> > > > >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this > discussion and > > > >> thats > > > >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not > be > > > >> doing > > > >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather > be > > > >> harming > > > >> it, for reasons stated below) > > > >> > > > >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom > > > >> guidelines. > > > >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter > > > >> amendment > > > >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to > me a > > > >> clear > > > >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we > > > >> censuring. > > > >> > > > >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon > > > >> said in an > > > >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the > behalf > > > >> of the > > > >> nomcom anymore on this issue. > > > >> > > > >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the > process > > > >> which > > > >> this > > > >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. > > > >> However, > > > >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this > > > >> nomcom did > > > >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. > > > >> > > > >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were > implied > > > >> within > > > >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person > > > >> should be > > > >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group > every > > > >> time. I > > > >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of > telecom > > > >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public > > > >> policy, > > > >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the > > > >> situation when > > > >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that > 'next, > > > >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the > > > >> behalf of > > > >> civil society'.) > > > >> > > > >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet > > > >> governance > > > >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the > IGC > > > >> as > > > >> could > > > >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a > few > > > >> weeks > > > >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call > for > > > >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus > > > >> process on > > > >> each > > > >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion > and > > > >> the > > > >> group picking up the sense of the group). > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When the group agreed that -- " . Civil society has been under > > > >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed > in > > > >> 2006 and > > > >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of > > > >> rotation"... it > > > >> was > > > >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated > > > >> with IGIs > > > >> in > > > >> describing our under-representation. > > > >> > > > >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided > most > > > >> clearly > > > >> by the statement > > > >> > > > >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet > > > >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical > > > >> standards > > > >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > > >> representation > > > >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation". > > > >> > > > >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people > > > >> centrally > > > >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's > > > >> slate of > > > >> CS > > > >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent > IGIs > > > >> at the > > > >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep > names > > > >> on our > > > >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. > > > >> > > > >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what > message > > > >> are we > > > >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the > group > > > >> clearly > > > >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this > statement. > > > >> > > > >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria > > > >> with IGC, > > > >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue > that > > > >> comes > > > >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for > IGC's > > > >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give > group's > > > >> clear > > > >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the > above > > > >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the > > > >> ostensible > > > >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is > to > > > >> give > > > >> some > > > >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of > further > > > >> obfuscation on the issue. > > > >> > > > >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real > > > >> issue - > > > >> and > > > >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So > > > >> instead of > > > >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the > > > >> only issue > > > >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we > > > >> just give > > > >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this > is > > > >> only for > > > >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb > > > >> statement). > > > >> > > > >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the > > > >> drafting of > > > >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will > > > >> argue > > > >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group > at > > > >> one time > > > >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also > > > >> nominated from > > > >> the CS group.... I really will like to see some sense put into > all > > > >> this. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Parminder > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > > > >> Checked by AVG. > > > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: > > > >> 6/7/2008 > > > >> 11:17 AM > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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. > > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: > 6/7/2008 > > > 11:17 AM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jun 8 12:48:19 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:48:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's criteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> References: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I thought I had sent this last night but apparently didn't. > -----Original Message----- > > 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made Let me add that in my opinion this would be a difficult if not impossible rule to fulfill, and attempts to fulfill it are likely to take a lot of time while providing meaningless results. In any tough selection process the _actual_ criteria used to select A over B will emerge as the selections are being made. Oh of course they can say things like "best qualified, most knowledgeable," or "regional and gender balance," blah blah. So I agree with what Parminder said subsequently, " this level of criteria writing may not necessary... however the nomcom should certainly have clear directions from the IGC on this issue. The present nomcom took that such directions already exist...." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jun 8 13:03:51 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:03:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Avri: > > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it > > selections? Nomcoms should follow written rules, yes. But the caucus should know the general criteria that it should use _before_ a Nomcom is even constituted. The nomcom should not make up new criteria every time it is formed and then stimulate endless debate in the middle of a selection process by publishing them to a list. I cannot believe this is being seriously proposed. Once you have the criteria you have no choice but to let the nomcom apply those criteria as it sees fit. Either you accept the Nomcom model or you don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't delegate selection authority to a group that works in private and then try to open up the selection process partially in mid stream. Publication of their alleged "criteria" accomplishes nothing. Unless the Nomcom publishes the NAMES of the people it proposes to select and reject prior to making the selection (which is obviously silly), the publication of "criteria" will just allow hecklers to second-guess decisions and haggle over possible applications of the criteria. This is utterly pointless. Furthermore, a Nomcom that was truly "out of control" or determined to select some people and reject others in a prejudicial manner will _not_ be effectively stopped by this pre-publication of criteria. The only check you have against that would be dissent within the Nomcom. So you have to trust the random selection process. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > > > > > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > > > are we > > > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > > > clearly > > > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > > > > > > Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little while > earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to. > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > > > > > On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message > > > are we > > > giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group > > > clearly > > > meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. > > > > > > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should > > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes it > > selections? > > > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Sun Jun 8 13:36:54 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:36:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] nomcom's criteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <045701c8c8da$01babc60$8b00a8c0@IAN> <848C4D0C-18A2-48EE-A074-8E21E2C7B9AF@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > Let me add that in my opinion this would be a difficult if not > impossible rule to fulfill, and attempts to fulfill it are likely to > take a lot of time while providing meaningless results. I agree with this. I served on the NomComm two years ago, and also served on the ICANN NomComm once, and the selection process is inexact and not really subject to objective analysis. At the end of the day, you always have more qualified candidates than you have available slots. How you place people into those slots is really a question of balance, compromise, and what feels right. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jun 9 00:08:24 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:08:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Rights workshop Message-ID: Hi, I mentioned here before the unfortunate lack of engagement between the caucus and the CS coalition involved in the upcoming OECD meeting in Seoul. On the WSIS plenary list Francis M. has today been raising related issues. One of the groups the caucus doesn¹t really interface with, but that¹s been long been active and doing interesting things related to IG (albeit without that framing), is Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue. I was just poking around links related to the OECD meeting and noticed that in March TACD released a Charter of Consumer Rights in the Digital World http://www.tacd.org/db_files/files/files-442-filetag.pdf. This led me to look at the caucus proposal for a rights workshop which states, ³There are a number of initiatives addressing rights issues in relation to the Internet. Several organisations have developed frameworks and charters (APC's Internet rights charter, the CRIS Framework, the Freedom of Expression project's Principles document to name but a few) that map existing rights in the context of the Internet and propose possible rights based approaches.² No TACD. Folks who are spearheading this proposal might want to reach out to them...? Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Jun 9 03:45:01 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:45:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080609074507.56E8153BF2B@mail.gn.apc.org> hi bill [... >"There are a number of initiatives addressing rights issues in >relation to the Internet. Several organisations have developed >frameworks and charters (APC's Internet rights charter, the CRIS >Framework, the Freedom of Expression project's Principles document >to name but a few) that map existing rights in the context of the >Internet and propose possible rights based approaches." > >No TACD. Folks who are spearheading this proposal might want to >reach out to them...? yes - i can update anna fielder (the TACD rep on the OECD civil society coord group) on the proposal - consumer rights groups in general are not very involved in ICT policy work or IG work.. but we've started to address this in outreaching to consumers union and consumers international around access to broadband robert guerra kindly introduced me to canadian CU groups which i haven't followed up on it would be good if all workshop proponents - and the caucus in general - look at how we can bring the consumer rights groups into the IGF more generally.. karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Jun 9 04:26:51 2008 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:26:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Mediterranean Astronautics Conference Message-ID: <00f301c8ca0a$9193ded0$3c12a8c0@acerb8600603ec> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Tijani BEN JEMAA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Africa CS ; plenary at wsis-cs.org ; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 12:33 PM Subject: Mediterranean Astronautics Conference Sorry for cross posting. FYI, in attached file, the first announcement for a mediterranean conference about space applications. Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1st Announcement_Mediterranean_conf_Final..doc Type: application/msword Size: 147456 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Jun 9 04:28:01 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:28:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] OECD Civil society reference group & OECD 2008 Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy In-Reply-To: <484C8D1E.3030204@mdpi.org> References: <484C8D1E.3030204@mdpi.org> Message-ID: <10958E73-1ECC-4B25-94D0-52FDF3D149CD@ras.eu.org> Dear Francis, As Lisa already explained, information about "The Public Voice" process has been sent long time ago, with invitation to join, to the governance caucus list, and few exchanges have appeared on this list too. This very large CS coalition holds monthly teleconferences (using skype), that are open to anyone willing to join (info at: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/pvwsismeetings/default.html. See also: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/ default.html#civil_society_documents). In view of this very process (OECD Ministerial in Seoul), this large coalition has prepared a background paper in a collaborative way and through, inter alia, a wiki. You wil note that latest version of the background paper is entitled: "Recommendations and Contributions to the OECD Ministerial Meeting of 17-18 June 2008 from Civil Society Participants in the Public Voice Coalition", thus not claiming to represent civil society as whole. That, we agree, would in any case be meaningless. Regarding the OECD CS Reference Group, it has been formed in view of this very process, by organizations and people having a work history with the OECD, to be the interface of the wide coalition. By work history, I really mean that some of these groups are following the OECD process for more than 10 years. I, for one, have participated on behalf of my French organization to the 1998 OECD Ministerial in Ottawa (http://gilc.org/events/ottawa98/agenda.html) and have organized an event in Paris in 1999, both in the framework of the Public Voice coalition and in conjunction with an OECD meeting (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/publicvoice99/). Since its establishment in 1996, the Public Voice coalition has been facilitated by EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center). In view of the 2008 OECD Ministerial, Katitza Rodriguez has been in charge of this facilitator role on behalf of EPIC. My own name appears as the other contact point for the CS-Labour Forum programme since, as part of the OECD CS Reference Group, I've helped Katitza with this. In summary, the public voice coalition has been created a long time ago, even well before the WSIS process, and has been aggregating many new CS people and groups over time. It has always been open to those willing to join (please contact Katitza Rodriguez: katitza at datos- personales.org if this is your case). One might say that the public voice coalition plays vis a vis the OECD the same role as this CS plenary list vis a vis WSIS and WSIS follow-up processes. Some people/ groups are engaged in both processes, and some other just in one of them. I hope this answers your questions. Best, Meryem Le 9 juin 08 à 03:53, Dr. Francis MUGUET a écrit : > [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 Lisa > > Many thanks for your prompt reply. >> >> Hi Francis and all, >> >> Try http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/. When you scroll >> down, you’ll see “reference group” list. > > OECD Civil Society Reference Group > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) > Consumers Korea > European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI) > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) > The Internet Governance Project (IGP) > Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) > OK, I see the list now. :-) > > and below contact points > Program contact > Katitza Rodríguez Pereda > The Public Voice Coordinator, OECD Civil Society Reference Group > > Meryem Marzouki > OECD Civil Society Reference Group > > anyway, more information than just a list, > is clearly required about this group > that claims to be a reference for Civil Society > as far as OECD is concerned > > how it was born ? > what is the basis of its legitimacy to be a reference ? > how it is coordinated ? > is it open to anyone ? > Is this reference group making open consultations ? > > Hope the contact points in c/c > could provide some more information on the > various WSIS lists. > > Many thanks > > Francis > > > >> >> Best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> On 6/8/08 9:05 PM, "Dr. Francis MUGUET" wrote: >> >> [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! >> _______________________________________ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing >> list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi- >> bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis > F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http:// > www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE > Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr > http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet FP7 Digital World Forum on Accessible > and Inclusive ICT PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the > Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific > Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : > http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// > www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis- > gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http:// > www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http:// > www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 9 08:25:56 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:25:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Avri: >> > you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should >> > follow the written rules and publish its criteria before its makes > it >> > selections? > > Nomcoms should follow written rules, yes. > > But the caucus should know the general criteria that it should use > _before_ a Nomcom is even constituted. The nomcom should not make up new > criteria every time it is formed and then stimulate endless debate in > the middle of a selection process by publishing them to a list. I cannot > believe this is being seriously proposed. > it's NOT being proposed, it's the way our charter is written "One month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make.." and "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus.." > Once you have the criteria you have no choice but to let the nomcom > apply those criteria as it sees fit. Either you accept the Nomcom model > or you don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't delegate selection > authority to a group that works in private and then try to open up the > selection process partially in mid stream. it's only the criteria that needs to be communicated, not the selectees, are you proposing an amendment to the charter to change this method? > > Publication of their alleged "criteria" accomplishes nothing. Except to fulfill the nomcoms obligation to rule #5. Unless the > Nomcom publishes the NAMES of the people it proposes to select and > reject prior to making the selection (which is obviously silly), the > publication of "criteria" will just allow hecklers to second-guess > decisions and haggle over possible applications of the criteria. This is > utterly pointless. Perhaps, but that's the way our process is supposed to be run. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 9 10:08:48 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:08:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: References: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC919@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding > > Milton, > > > it's NOT being proposed, it's the way our charter is written > > "One month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the > criteria for the selections they are to make.." and > > "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by > the caucus.." Obviously, this all takes place BEFORE the Nomcom is constituted. "constitute the nomcom AND determine the criteria for the selections they are to make." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Jun 9 10:24:37 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:24:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC919@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <709C1965-B09B-435C-94CF-9B7EF69A7C1C@psg.com> <20080607111803.B5B1A6789E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB77DD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC919@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <18A26AA8-C1B6-4F88-883A-4B9176DEF4C9@psg.com> hi, From my reading, i think you are both right. What a treat. The caucus is supposed to determine the criteria as the nomcom is being constituted. And the nomcom is supposed to publish the criteria it will be using and the caucus is supposed to review it. Something like a system of checks and balances. I guess it is also possible that the caucus will reach a consensus on the criteria, review it and give something to the nomcom that it should not deviate from. a. On 9 Jun 2008, at 10:08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:26 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding >> >> Milton, >> >> >> it's NOT being proposed, it's the way our charter is written >> >> "One month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the >> criteria for the selections they are to make.." and >> >> "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by >> the caucus.." > > Obviously, this all takes place BEFORE the Nomcom is constituted. > "constitute the nomcom AND determine the > criteria for the selections they are to make." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jun 9 11:51:12 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:51:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion Message-ID: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost track of this intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot find the time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now produced on the list. As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and what is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. Thanks in advance. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Jun 9 12:26:29 2008 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:26:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As a french compatriot, could I add my voice to Bertrand¹s and ask for a summary as well. I suggest also to move to the decision to create several sub-discussion threads, with a timeline to discuss each one and a summary after the end of each weak or so spent on each... Else things degenerate, as we have seen and it doesn¹ t cast a good image of the group... Please don¹t take this as a criticism, just a need to move forward. Divina Le 9/06/08 17:51, « Bertrand de La Chapelle » a écrit : > Dear Parminder, > > I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost track of this > intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot find the time > to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now produced on the list. > > As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main actors > involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and what is at > stake here ? I'm a bit lost. > > Thanks in advance. > > Best > > Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Jun 9 12:50:14 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:50:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> You are not alone, Bertrand. It has become nearly impossible to follow... --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost track of this > intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot find the > time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now produced on the > list. > > As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main > actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and what > is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. > > Thanks in advance. > > Best > > Bertrand > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 10 00:23:47 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:23:47 +0900 Subject: Fwd: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Message-ID: Hi, Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme? Perfect, no problems... And a few deadlines now just 20 days away. Would the caucus like to reserve a booth as a general CS information sharing and meeting point (anyone willing to take that on as a project?) Adam >Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:50:05 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake >Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband programme > >Hi, > >A revised paper giving details of the programme, agenda and format >of the Hyderabad meeting has just been put on the IGF website >, >file also attached. Becoming more fixed, but the paper is intended >to reflect the process so far so still a work in progress. > >Note the new deadlines: > >30 June > >* proposals for Open Forums. >* proposals for Dynamic Coalition meetings. >* requests for a booth in the IGF village. >* revision of workshop proposals/merging of workshops. > >12 September > >* submission of final programme for all workshops, best practice >forums, open forums and Dynamic Coalition meetings. >* submission of papers as an input for the Hyderabad meeting. > >Important: note the relationship between main session workshops and >main sessions. We all need to work out the best way to design these >workshops and main sessions. > >Thanks, > >Adam____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 159579 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vb at bertola.eu Tue Jun 10 02:10:46 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:10:46 +0200 Subject: Fwd: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <484E1AE6.7090701@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Hi, > > Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme? Perfect, > no problems... Yes I have a comment: I am quite surprised by the choice of main themes, since apparently any reference to rights, duties and freedoms has disappeared... there is an agenda item on access, one on security and one on critical Internet resources, but nothing on "openness" and nothing on "diversity". That's not good news at all - correct me if I'm wrong, but most themes civil society is interested in, as well as many (perhaps most) coalitions, are working in the "openness" family of issues, and now these themes are off the agenda. Or did I misunderstand the meaning of the paper? If the only themes that the IGF will be promoting in the future are how to export technology into developing countries and how to implement effective law enforcement over the Internet, the interest in attending for civil society could be quite low. -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Jun 10 04:27:43 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:27:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484E1AE6.7090701@bertola.eu> References: <484E1AE6.7090701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Hi all, I second Vittorio's comment. These choices are very surprising (or are they not surprising at all?!). A good summary of this process seems to be found in the document itself. To simply quote one example: "The heading previously under consideration – ʻUniversalization of the Internetʼ – was not retained, as it was deemed controversial. “Reaching the next billion” was felt to be more neutral and acceptable by all." 'Universalization' felt controversial for a UN meeting: go figure! It's quite interesting that a discursive space such as the IGF, where absolutely no decision is made (and even a simple "message" cannot be elaborated) is so worried about any discussion taking place. Yes, the objective of this so-called "substantive" program seems to ensure broader and safer market opportunities for business. Very innovative indeed. So we had a first list of themes, and we were encouraged to propose workshops according to this list: - Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (Expanding the Internet), - Low cost sustainable access, - Multilingualization, - Implications for development policy, - Managing the Internet (Using the Internet), - Critical Internet resources, - Arrangements for Internet governance, - Global cooperation for Internet security and stability, - Taking stock and the way forward, - Emerging issues (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm) Then the list has been modified at the time the workshop were submitted, to the extent that proposers were confused about how they were supposed to make their proposals, and workshops are currently classified according to this list: - access, - diversity, - openness, - security, - critical internet resources, - development, - capacity building, - others (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php) And the list has been modified again, with the current resulting themes: - Reaching the Next Billion, - Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, - Managing Critical Internet Resources, - Taking Stock and the Way Forward, - Emerging Issues (http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper. 05.06.2008.pdf) The question is then: what will happen with the proposed workshops, including IGC workshops? Best, Meryem Le 10 juin 08 à 08:10, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Hi, >> Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme? >> Perfect, no problems... > > Yes I have a comment: I am quite surprised by the choice of main > themes, since apparently any reference to rights, duties and > freedoms has disappeared... there is an agenda item on access, one > on security and one on critical Internet resources, but nothing on > "openness" and nothing on "diversity". That's not good news at all > - correct me if I'm wrong, but most themes civil society is > interested in, as well as many (perhaps most) coalitions, are > working in the "openness" family of issues, and now these themes > are off the agenda. Or did I misunderstand the meaning of the paper? > If the only themes that the IGF will be promoting in the future are > how to export technology into developing countries and how to > implement effective law enforcement over the Internet, the interest > in attending for civil society could be quite low. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 10 04:58:09 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:58:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Reaching the next billion sounds very evangelical rather than principled and unlike the UN - but does give indication of the voices heard loudest. That universalisation is at all contentious is a statement in itself - is universal rights contentious? Universal education? Can anyone give background as to why it is contentious? 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: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: 10 June 2008 18:28 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Hi all, > > I second Vittorio's comment. These choices are very surprising (or > are they not surprising at all?!). A good summary of this process > seems to be found in the document itself. To simply quote one > example: "The heading previously under consideration – > ʻUniversalization of the Internetʼ – was not retained, as it was > deemed controversial. “Reaching the next billion” was felt to be > more neutral and acceptable by all." 'Universalization' felt > controversial for a UN meeting: go figure! > It's quite interesting that a discursive space such as the IGF, where > absolutely no decision is made (and even a simple "message" cannot be > elaborated) is so worried about any discussion taking place. > Yes, the objective of this so-called "substantive" program seems to > ensure broader and safer market opportunities for business. Very > innovative indeed. > > So we had a first list of themes, and we were encouraged to propose > workshops according to this list: > - Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion > (Expanding the Internet), > - Low cost sustainable access, > - Multilingualization, > - Implications for development policy, > - Managing the Internet (Using the Internet), > - Critical Internet resources, > - Arrangements for Internet governance, > - Global cooperation for Internet security and stability, > - Taking stock and the way forward, > - Emerging issues > (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm) > > Then the list has been modified at the time the workshop were > submitted, to the extent that proposers were confused about how they > were supposed to make their proposals, and workshops are currently > classified according to this list: > - access, > - diversity, > - openness, > - security, > - critical internet resources, > - development, > - capacity building, > - others > (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php) > > And the list has been modified again, with the current resulting themes: > - Reaching the Next Billion, > - Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, > - Managing Critical Internet Resources, > - Taking Stock and the Way Forward, > - Emerging Issues > (http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper. > 05.06.2008.pdf) > > The question is then: what will happen with the proposed workshops, > including IGC workshops? > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 10 juin 08 à 08:10, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > >> Hi, > >> Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme? > >> Perfect, no problems... > > > > Yes I have a comment: I am quite surprised by the choice of main > > themes, since apparently any reference to rights, duties and > > freedoms has disappeared... there is an agenda item on access, one > > on security and one on critical Internet resources, but nothing on > > "openness" and nothing on "diversity". That's not good news at all > > - correct me if I'm wrong, but most themes civil society is > > interested in, as well as many (perhaps most) coalitions, are > > working in the "openness" family of issues, and now these themes > > are off the agenda. Or did I misunderstand the meaning of the paper? > > If the only themes that the IGF will be promoting in the future are > > how to export technology into developing countries and how to > > implement effective law enforcement over the Internet, the interest > > in attending for civil society could be quite low. > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 > 5:25 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Jun 10 05:21:04 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:21:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Gov 546] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] OECD Civil society reference group & OECD 2008 Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy In-Reply-To: <484D6DFA.7060806@mdpi.org> References: <484C6AA5.7070103@mdpi.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC91D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <484D6DFA.7060806@mdpi.org> Message-ID: Le 9 juin 08 à 19:52, Francis MUGUET a écrit : >> As I recall, around the time of its recognition by the OECD >> meeting in OCtober, a French delegate > who may be not aware of WSIS >> gave us a list of French CS organizations to contact. They were >> duly contacted but none really came forward. > I was not among the ones being contacted, neither do seem most of > my friends... Neither was I.. Actually, It's first time I hear this. As far as I'm concerned, I'm officially part of the ref group on behalf of EDRI (European digital rights, an association of 28 organizations from 17 European countries) since late Feb. 2008. I'm reproducing below excerpts of a message from the OECD liaison person to CS, sent to the public voice coalition list on March 13, 2008 for clarification. It's important to bear in mind that the OECD is not a UN body or forum claiming for multistakeholderism, but an intergovernmental organization in the "classical" sense, I would say. Best, Meryem > I am glad to clarify the framework of civil society participation > in the OECD Ministerial meeting in Seoul. > > As a general matter, the process to involve civil society in OECD > work is still very informal and mostly rely on non-governmental > stakeholders providing input as experts either to the Secretariat > or the governmental bodies of the OECD. Some stakeholder groups, > like BIAC and TUAC, have a long standing consultative status with > the OECD, and other groups, such as CS groups, have been > increasingly involved on a case by case basis. > > Going a few years back, the Ottawa ministerial on E-commerce in > 1998 highlighted the importance of involving non-governmental > stakeholders in policy discussions on the Internet (http:// > www.ottawaoecdconference.org/english/homepage.html). Since then, > much of the work of interest to civil society in the OECD, such as > consumer protection issues, privacy, and information security, has > been developed with the benefit of civil society expertise. > > With regard more specifically to the Ministerial meeting in Seoul, > the starting point is that the meeting has a prominent > intergovernmental focus –the outputs are planned for adoption by > governmental representatives only – however it is complemented by a > number of vehicles for dialogue and exchange with non-governmental > stakeholders. > > In order to support non-governmental stakeholder participation and > coordinate contributions, we are working closely with a group of > experts from business, labour, the internet technical community and > civil society. In this context, we called on a small group of > selected experts from the civil society to help us channeling the > civil society input in a more efficient way. This small group of > experts constitute the “reference group”, i.e. a group helping > coordination of CS participation. Many of these experts have a long > history of working with OECD on these issues. > > To benefit from a broader cross-section of views, three non- > governmental stakeholders’ forum are planned as part of the > Ministerial meeting programme: the CS and TUAC forum, the Business > forum, and the ITC forum. They will all take place in the same > venue as that where Ministers will meet (COEX). > > In the first Ministerial meeting plenary on 17 June, non- > governmental stakeholder groups will have a “rapporteur” presenting > to Ministers the outcome of their Forum. > > Background papers from different groups are welcome, and will be > posted on the Ministerial website. In addition, and more > importantly, each group is invited to issue its own final > statement, that we will post on our Ministerial site, as part of > the proceedings, and will be highlighted in the Ministerial Chair’s > conclusions. During the closing session, one speaker from each > group will also have the possibility to intervene briefly. > > At an earlier stage, you might remember that we also launched a > public consultation (from July to September 2007). Results are > available online at www.oecd.org/FutureInternet, under > Participation. With the consultation we sought input on the main > themes to be covered at the meeting, touching upon social and > economic impact of the internet, addressing issues such as > convergence, competition, privacy, digital content, etc. > > In general, the Ministerial sessions and roundtable are for the > most part open to all participants. In fact, the only part of the > process that is more restricted is the final negotiating session > for the Ministerial declaration, which is limited to governments, > at their request. > > In this context, I would like to point out that the documents > (Draft Declaration + Draft Policy Framework) have not yet been > approved by our member countries, and therefore are not > declassified. This means they are still working documents in > circulation only among OECD members, some member economies invited > to participate in the Ministerial meeting, and the standing > advisory committees to OECD: BIAC and TUAC. We also informally > requested directly comments/inputs from some experts from civil > society on these classified documents. This latter process is based > on the mutual understanding and commitment that these individuals > will not widely distribute the documents. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 10 05:33:26 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:33:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> Agree on the need for a summary. Especially since the discussion risks to be now focused on other issues (programme and close deadlines). Best, Meryem Le 9 juin 08 à 18:50, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > You are not alone, Bertrand. It has become nearly impossible to > follow... > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost >> track of this >> intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot >> find the >> time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now >> produced on the >> list. >> As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the >> main >> actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main >> positions and what >> is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. >> Thanks in advance. >> Best >> Bertrand > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Jun 10 05:44:25 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:44:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <1213091065.484e4cf9f3cee@heimail.unige.ch> Without having asked MAG people about the reasoning, I'm going to guess that universalization is feared by some to open the door to consideration of such options as universal access obligations and associated regulations being imposed on major ISPs, VOIP providers, etc... ? These questions are already being considered by NRAs in North America, Europe, etc. in the context of IP-enhanced services, NGN, etc.--presumably all the more reason we shouldn't talk about them? Bill Quoting Ian Peter : > Reaching the next billion sounds very evangelical rather than principled and > unlike the UN - but does give indication of the voices heard loudest. > > That universalisation is at all contentious is a statement in itself - is > universal rights contentious? Universal education? > > Can anyone give background as to why it is contentious? > > > > 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: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > Sent: 10 June 2008 18:28 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > Hi all, > > > > I second Vittorio's comment. These choices are very surprising (or > > are they not surprising at all?!). A good summary of this process > > seems to be found in the document itself. To simply quote one > > example: "The heading previously under consideration – > > Ê»Universalization of the Internetʼ – was not retained, as it was > > deemed controversial. “Reaching the next billion” was felt to be > > more neutral and acceptable by all." 'Universalization' felt > > controversial for a UN meeting: go figure! > > It's quite interesting that a discursive space such as the IGF, where > > absolutely no decision is made (and even a simple "message" cannot be > > elaborated) is so worried about any discussion taking place. > > Yes, the objective of this so-called "substantive" program seems to > > ensure broader and safer market opportunities for business. Very > > innovative indeed. > > > > So we had a first list of themes, and we were encouraged to propose > > workshops according to this list: > > - Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion > > (Expanding the Internet), > > - Low cost sustainable access, > > - Multilingualization, > > - Implications for development policy, > > - Managing the Internet (Using the Internet), > > - Critical Internet resources, > > - Arrangements for Internet governance, > > - Global cooperation for Internet security and stability, > > - Taking stock and the way forward, > > - Emerging issues > > (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm) > > > > Then the list has been modified at the time the workshop were > > submitted, to the extent that proposers were confused about how they > > were supposed to make their proposals, and workshops are currently > > classified according to this list: > > - access, > > - diversity, > > - openness, > > - security, > > - critical internet resources, > > - development, > > - capacity building, > > - others > > (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php) > > > > And the list has been modified again, with the current resulting themes: > > - Reaching the Next Billion, > > - Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, > > - Managing Critical Internet Resources, > > - Taking Stock and the Way Forward, > > - Emerging Issues > > (http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper. > > 05.06.2008.pdf) > > > > The question is then: what will happen with the proposed workshops, > > including IGC workshops? > > > > Best, > > Meryem > > > > Le 10 juin 08 à 08:10, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > > > > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > >> Hi, > > >> Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme? > > >> Perfect, no problems... > > > > > > Yes I have a comment: I am quite surprised by the choice of main > > > themes, since apparently any reference to rights, duties and > > > freedoms has disappeared... there is an agenda item on access, one > > > on security and one on critical Internet resources, but nothing on > > > "openness" and nothing on "diversity". That's not good news at all > > > - correct me if I'm wrong, but most themes civil society is > > > interested in, as well as many (perhaps most) coalitions, are > > > working in the "openness" family of issues, and now these themes > > > are off the agenda. Or did I misunderstand the meaning of the paper? > > > If the only themes that the IGF will be promoting in the future are > > > how to export technology into developing countries and how to > > > implement effective law enforcement over the Internet, the interest > > > in attending for civil society could be quite low. > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 > > 5:25 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 10 05:45:34 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:45:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> Summary - 1. The nomcom says "technical internet governance institutions" like the RIRs are not civil society and not eligible to be nominated as civil society by the caucus 2. Some of us disagree 2a. Some of us also point out something others have pointed out, the nomcomm should have checked back with the caucus before taking this kind of decision. > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion > > Agree on the need for a summary. Especially since the discussion > risks to be now focused on other issues (programme and close deadlines). > Best, > Meryem > > Le 9 juin 08 à 18:50, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > > > You are not alone, Bertrand. It has become nearly impossible to > > follow... > > > > --c.a. > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Dear Parminder, > >> I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost > >> track of this > >> intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot > >> find the > >> time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now > >> produced on the > >> list. > >> As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the > >> main > >> actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main > >> positions and what > >> is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. > >> Thanks in advance. > >> Best > >> Bertrand > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 10 06:04:59 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:04:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> Message-ID: <2F3D4D26-BD8D-44A0-B5B2-A2F302764622@ras.eu.org> Thanks Suresh. So, this seems business as usual:) But is some decision to be taken, a charter amendment proposed? best, Meryem Le 10 juin 08 à 11:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Summary - > > 1. The nomcom says "technical internet governance institutions" > like the > RIRs are not civil society and not eligible to be nominated as > civil society > by the caucus > > 2. Some of us disagree > > 2a. Some of us also point out something others have pointed out, > the nomcomm > should have checked back with the caucus before taking this kind of > decision. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:33 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion >> >> Agree on the need for a summary. Especially since the discussion >> risks to be now focused on other issues (programme and close >> deadlines). >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 9 juin 08 à 18:50, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >>> You are not alone, Bertrand. It has become nearly impossible to >>> follow... >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost >>>> track of this >>>> intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot >>>> find the >>>> time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now >>>> produced on the >>>> list. >>>> As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the >>>> main >>>> actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main >>>> positions and what >>>> is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> Best >>>> Bertrand >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Jun 10 06:17:03 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:17:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of the people who indicated that we should not use “universalization of the internet” because it might be controversial. As you know, the word universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it refers to things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there are common to all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant cultural schemes, widely disseminated, may be qualified as universal. Many would argue that we do say “universal access” in health, in political economy, but “universalization of the internet”(contents also?) is a new invented term, of which content has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I prefer that we have something less controversial (in fact other people had the same argument against that phrase during the open consultations according to what I heard, and also some MAG people shared that opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be imposed on ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as William indicated. “Reaching the next billion of users” was then proposed to be only kept. I do think that this is more neutral and frankly, it indicates more directly what we want, which is access for all. However, other colleagues said it was better to withdraw “of users”, giving various reasons. I agree “reaching the next billion” may seem evangelical, but personally I prefer it (or rather I prefer “reaching the next billion of users”) to “universalization of the internet”. 2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of them is as follows (as in the draft program sent by Adam) - Reaching the next billion ** Access ** Multilingualism. - Promoting cyber-security and trust ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? ** Fostering security, privacy and openness - Managing critical Internet resources ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. ** Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional. - Taking Stock and the Way Forward - Emerging issues. So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be discussed. This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG because a lot of people suggested (open consultations, written contributions, etc.), that we have headings differents from the four or five classic used in Athens and Rio (Access, Diversity, Security and Openness + CIR). Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion (I’m not sure this statement will be welcome but…:-) - And I believe was is essential is included, even though personally I’m not totally satisfied. That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding for workshop selection. (the main suggestion made by the MAG here is that some workshop are merged, because notably of logistical slots available and common themes. Finally, it’s still a rolling document and if we want to argue for some changes, there’s still room for that. Rgds Ken L ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 10 06:29:24 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:29:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Thanks for the update Ken - I understand from your response and Bill's some of the issues that make the billion users option a much safer way to proceed (but IMHO a less useful one). Forward also with the campaigns to give the next billion humans human rights, and the next billion food and shelter, and the next billion education. Targets are OK as interim measures I guess, but inclusive higher objectives might also be useful somewhere... Maybe "The Internet is for everyone " (an ISOC catchcry and a good one)might be able to find a life here somewhere. 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: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > Sent: 10 June 2008 20:17 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues > > 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of the > people who indicated that we should not use "universalization of the > internet" because it might be controversial. As you know, the word > universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it refers to > things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there are common to > all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant cultural schemes, > widely disseminated, may be qualified as universal. Many would argue > that we do say "universal access" in health, in political economy, but > "universalization of the internet"(contents also?) is a new invented > term, of which content has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I > prefer that we have something less controversial (in fact other people > had the same argument against that phrase during the open consultations > according to what I heard, and also some MAG people shared that > opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be imposed on > ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as William indicated. > "Reaching the next billion of users" was then proposed to be only kept. > I do think that this is more neutral and frankly, it indicates more > directly what we want, which is access for all. However, other > colleagues said it was better to withdraw "of users", giving various > reasons. I agree "reaching the next billion" may seem evangelical, but > personally I prefer it (or rather I prefer "reaching the next billion of > users") to "universalization of the internet". > > 2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of > them is as follows (as in the draft program sent by Adam) > > - Reaching the next billion > > ** Access > > ** Multilingualism. > > - Promoting cyber-security and trust > > ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > ** Fostering security, privacy and openness > > - Managing critical Internet resources > > ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. > > ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and national/regional. > > - Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > - Emerging issues. > > So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and > multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be discussed. > This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG because a lot of > people suggested (open consultations, written contributions, etc.), that > we have headings differents from the four or five classic used in Athens > and Rio (Access, Diversity, Security and Openness + CIR). > > Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion (I'm > not sure this statement will be welcome but.:-) - And I believe was is > essential is included, even though personally I'm not totally satisfied. > > That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding for > workshop selection. (the main suggestion made by the MAG here is that > some workshop are merged, because notably of logistical slots > available and common themes. > > Finally, it's still a rolling document and if we want to argue for some > changes, there's still room for that. > > Rgds > > Ken L > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 > 5:25 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Jun 10 07:30:03 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:30:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <513B03CB-09EB-442F-985A-66EFA8C72530@ras.eu.org> Dear Ken, Thanks for these inputs and explanations. I do understand your point on 'universalization' and the risks this might convey. I do share your concerns about dominant cultural schemes - which are already in place, BTW. However, I'm not really convinced that here, these concerns have been the reason why the word has been abandoned. Moreover, I'm wondering why, in an arena like the IGF, terms should be discussed and agreed upon in advance. Isn't the very purpose of the IGF to discuss this? In any case, the issue is not new, actually, and even universal human rights are still subject to discussion by some, including in view of introducing cultural relativism bias. I'd be interested in hearing about the "various" reasons that led to withdraw "of users". Is there another next billion to be reached? like a billion of dollars?:) On your second point, I already noticed that the themes have subheadings. But I'm not reassured at all. Especially when I see that "Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional" are only understood under "Managing critical Internet resources". Not to mention those subheadings under "Promoting cyber-security and trust". I'm still of the opinion that this agenda is a business agenda, including the guarantees expected from governments in view of fullfilling this agenda. This is not at all satisfactory from a CS viewpoint, at least not from my understanding. Best, Meryem Le 10 juin 08 à 12:17, Ken Lohento a écrit : > Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues > > 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of > the people who indicated that we should not use “universalization > of the internet” because it might be controversial. As you know, > the word universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it > refers to things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there > are common to all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant > cultural schemes, widely disseminated, may be qualified as > universal. Many would argue that we do say “universal access” in > health, in political economy, but “universalization of the > internet”(contents also?) is a new invented term, of which content > has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I prefer that we have > something less controversial (in fact other people had the same > argument against that phrase during the open consultations > according to what I heard, and also some MAG people shared that > opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be imposed > on ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as William > indicated. “Reaching the next billion of users” was then proposed > to be only kept. I do think that this is more neutral and frankly, > it indicates more directly what we want, which is access for all. > However, other colleagues said it was better to withdraw “of > users”, giving various reasons. I agree “reaching the next billion” > may seem evangelical, but personally I prefer it (or rather I > prefer “reaching the next billion of users”) to “universalization > of the internet”. > > 2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of > them is as follows (as in the draft program sent by Adam) > > - Reaching the next billion > > ** Access > > ** Multilingualism. > - Promoting cyber-security and trust > > ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > ** Fostering security, privacy and openness > > - Managing critical Internet resources > > ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. > > ** Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/ > regional. > > - Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > - Emerging issues. > > So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and > multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be > discussed. This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG > because a lot of people suggested (open consultations, written > contributions, etc.), that we have headings differents from the > four or five classic used in Athens and Rio (Access, Diversity, > Security and Openness + CIR). > > Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion > (I’m not sure this statement will be welcome but…:-) - And I > believe was is essential is included, even though personally I’m > not totally satisfied. > > That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding > for workshop selection. (the main suggestion made by the MAG > here is that some workshop are merged, because notably of > logistical slots available and common themes. > > Finally, it’s still a rolling document and if we want to argue for > some changes, there’s still room for that. > > Rgds > > Ken L > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 10 08:24:58 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:24:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: I think Ken's explained things clearly. "Universalization" wasn't popular with all (all MAG members or all contributions to the consultation). It meant different things to different people, though Parminder's comments during the open session were helpful to many MAG members and came pretty close to swinging it. But in the end some were sure it was controversial in and of itself, some thought it fine, some just weren't sure... and that wasn't satisfactory as a way forward for the group. Objections didn't break along the typical stereotypical lines you seem to be guessing, it's probably best to be more charitable/less negative. I was pretty ambivalent, I generally find session titles unimportant, what matters is civil society groups get involved in shaping the main session workshops and main debates. Ian, about ISOC's "The Internet is for Everyone" the overall theme of the meeting is "Internet for All" following UNESCO's "Education for All". I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty dull. So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. As previous years the intention is to accommodate all workshops, but comments have been pretty universal in asking for less overlap and better organization of the workshops and other parallel meetings, so MAG hopes more workshops will merge that in previous years. And will try to encourage more to merge. None of the caucus workshops should be lost. But they need to be finished by June 30. And if we can find opportunities for merging then that would help the overall schedule. There are three to do, so a good idea to get started. And as Ken also said, the Hyderabad paper's a rolling document, we can make comments (as a caucus, individuals, small groups...) But I'm a bit surprised by what seem to be quite strong negative reactions, the new schedule's not too different from the synthesis paper issued before the consultation, and the gist of the paper was in the summary report of the MAG meeting made available on May 16 (day after the meeting), Avri mentioned it was available to the list on May 16. Probably overlooked in all the discussion about the nomcom etc. Which is a shame. Adam >Thanks for the update Ken - I understand from your response and Bill's some >of the issues that make the billion users option a much safer way to proceed >(but IMHO a less useful one). > >Forward also with the campaigns to give the next billion humans human >rights, and the next billion food and shelter, and the next billion >education. > >Targets are OK as interim measures I guess, but inclusive higher objectives >might also be useful somewhere... > >Maybe "The Internet is for everyone " (an ISOC catchcry and a good one)might >be able to find a life here somewhere. > > > >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: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] >> Sent: 10 June 2008 20:17 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme >> >> Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues >> >> 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of the >> people who indicated that we should not use "universalization of the >> internet" because it might be controversial. As you know, the word >> universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it refers to >> things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there are common to >> all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant cultural schemes, >> widely disseminated, may be qualified as universal. Many would argue >> that we do say "universal access" in health, in political economy, but > > "universalization of the internet"(contents also?) is a new invented >> term, of which content has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I >> prefer that we have something less controversial (in fact other people >> had the same argument against that phrase during the open consultations >> according to what I heard, and also some MAG people shared that >> opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be imposed on >> ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as William indicated. >> "Reaching the next billion of users" was then proposed to be only kept. >> I do think that this is more neutral and frankly, it indicates more >> directly what we want, which is access for all. However, other >> colleagues said it was better to withdraw "of users", giving various >> reasons. I agree "reaching the next billion" may seem evangelical, but >> personally I prefer it (or rather I prefer "reaching the next billion of >> users") to "universalization of the internet". >> >> 2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of >> them is as follows (as in the draft program sent by Adam) >> >> - Reaching the next billion >> >> ** Access >> >> ** Multilingualism. >> >> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >> >> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >> >> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >> >> - Managing critical Internet resources >> >> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >> >> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and national/regional. >> >> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >> >> - Emerging issues. >> >> So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and >> multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be discussed. >> This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG because a lot of >> people suggested (open consultations, written contributions, etc.), that >> we have headings differents from the four or five classic used in Athens >> and Rio (Access, Diversity, Security and Openness + CIR). >> >> Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion (I'm >> not sure this statement will be welcome but.:-) - And I believe was is >> essential is included, even though personally I'm not totally satisfied. >> >> That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding for >> workshop selection. (the main suggestion made by the MAG here is that >> some workshop are merged, because notably of logistical slots >> available and common themes. >> >> Finally, it's still a rolling document and if we want to argue for some >> changes, there's still room for that. >> >> Rgds >> > > Ken L >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 08:33:19 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:33:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <2F3D4D26-BD8D-44A0-B5B2-A2F302764622@ras.eu.org> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> <2F3D4D26-BD8D-44A0-B5B2-A2F302764622@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi Meryem, On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Thanks Suresh. So, this seems business as usual:) But is some decision to be > taken, a charter amendment proposed? several; On May 22nd, I proposed that we amend http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html point 4 to read 4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. No disqualification can be made based upon the type of employment undertaken by members. I did this since the charter says "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." It doesn't seem fair that some members are less equal than others, based on employer. Bill has since proposed that we form a working group to unambiguously sort this out. The NomCom made a recommendation "that an independent Chair -either voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes associated with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a smoother operation, include . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates details . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid employees of internet governance organisations . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on NomComs . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for future NomComs." Mike Gurstein made a motion that "we move on and that there be no further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group." -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Guru at itforchange.net Tue Jun 10 09:54:42 2008 From: Guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:24:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <484E87A2.4020302@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jun 10 10:05:59 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:05:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: On 10 Jun 2008, at 08:24, Adam Peake wrote: > > As previous years the intention is to accommodate all workshops, but > comments have been pretty universal in asking for less overlap and > better organization of the workshops and other parallel meetings, so > MAG hopes more workshops will merge that in previous years. And will > try to encourage more to merge. the one thing i would add is that if any of the CS initiated workshops is within the themes chosen for the Main Workshop Sessions, then they can talk to the secretariat about scheduling it the main room slot - thus having in transcribed and translated in all 6 languages. i don't know if everyone would consider this a good thing and i can imagine many would want to keep the smaller more 'intimate' setup. but if anyone does want to put their workshop on the main stage and they fit within the broad parameters proposed by the MAG, it is an open opportunity. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Jun 10 10:03:51 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:03:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights workshop References: <20080609074507.56E8153BF2B@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00654F2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi This is an issue we're currently looking at under the banner of the Freedom of Expression Project (looking at the comms environment as a whole, but obviously internet governance is a huge part of that). The TACD rights charter is great, covering the same kinds of issues as our project policy principles and the APC rights charter. I agree that there's important work to be done in reaching out to consumers groups around IG issues, and a strong presence at the IGF would be beneficial. We're working closely with the Consumers Union in the US, and through them with other groups who are members of TACD (Public Knowledge, EFF, Epic etc), and with Consumers International. I've just come back from the US national conference for media reform where lots of IG issues (net neutrality, filtering etc) are on the agenda. These are often looked at through the lens of consumer rights, which seems to have greater resonance than human rights in many arenas. We're looking at ways of bridging the gap between consumer rights and human rights in ways that can strengthen the two movements and the influence they have on communications policy. It'd be great to hear from anyone doing work in this area, or from any consumers groups on this list. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Horner Head of Research and Policy Unit Global Partners and Associates 4th Floor Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1AH Office: + 44 207 861 3960 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 lisa at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk ________________________________ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Mon 09/06/2008 08:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Rights workshop hi bill [... There are a number of initiatives addressing rights issues in relation to the Internet. Several organisations have developed frameworks and charters (APC's Internet rights charter, the CRIS Framework, the Freedom of Expression project's Principles document to name but a few) that map existing rights in the context of the Internet and propose possible rights based approaches. No TACD. Folks who are spearheading this proposal might want to reach out to them...? yes - i can update anna fielder (the TACD rep on the OECD civil society coord group) on the proposal - consumer rights groups in general are not very involved in ICT policy work or IG work.. but we've started to address this in outreaching to consumers union and consumers international around access to broadband robert guerra kindly introduced me to canadian CU groups which i haven't followed up on it would be good if all workshop proponents - and the caucus in general - look at how we can bring the consumer rights groups into the IGF more generally.. karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jun 10 10:37:37 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:37:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <1FF34E0D-940C-49D0-B831-BF25C714BCFC@psg.com> hi again, it was pointed out that i neglected to mention that if there are several appropriate workshops that want to be in the main workshop sessions, then the merge issue remains in effect. it was also pointed out that i may not have been clear that moving a workshop into the main session slot means it won't also be held in another slot. in any case, the first step toward moving a workshop into the main room remains - get in touch with the secretariat to indicate interest in doing so. there will be other steps along the way, i am sure, but those still need to be developed and announced. a. On 10 Jun 2008, at 10:05, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2008, at 08:24, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> As previous years the intention is to accommodate all workshops, >> but comments have been pretty universal in asking for less overlap >> and better organization of the workshops and other parallel >> meetings, so MAG hopes more workshops will merge that in previous >> years. And will try to encourage more to merge. > > > the one thing i would add is that if any of the CS initiated > workshops is within the themes chosen for the Main Workshop > Sessions, then they can talk to the secretariat about scheduling it > the main room slot - thus having in transcribed and translated in > all 6 languages. > > i don't know if everyone would consider this a good thing and i can > imagine many would want to keep the smaller more 'intimate' setup. > but if anyone does want to put their workshop on the main stage and > they fit within the broad parameters proposed by the MAG, it is an > open opportunity. > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Jun 10 12:05:58 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:05:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <2D7115A7-BEEF-4086-A1A4-50637339AAD2@internet.law.pro> On Jun 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > the one thing i would add is that if any of the CS initiated > workshops is within the themes chosen for the Main Workshop Sessions The themes are so broad that it's hard to imagine something that wouldn't fit. Bret -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4140 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 13:14:30 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:14:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights workshop In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00654F2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <20080609074507.56E8153BF2B@mail.gn.apc.org> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00654F2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <45ed74050806101014re5c0ed3yb63bbf5be6a7cb02@mail.gmail.com> Dear Lisa and hi All: It's great to see such structural and thematic elements of *'rights' approaches* coming into focus - for which discourse many thanks. Relatedly, in discussion at the recent 18th convening of "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy" - Yale Law School / Assoc. for Computing Machinery - 'sidebar' discussion took note of the dual: "*rights and duties*." One take on this frequent coupling is that when X (group or individual) wants or has rights, duties also attach. Another view is that when X claims or has rights, others have duties toward them. Both views and others seeme mutually compatible, just different dimensions and points of entry. Can we now gather and explore *links* to existing or "in the works" documents (instruments) asserting rights in the Internet Governance context(s), link to (access them, and examine together communally how rights and duties (or responsibilities) appear to play out in them? In principle and in proposed or achieved actions? This sharing and discussion can be a rich database of links or documents-proper to spring much interesting discussion, here on the list and / or at the next IGF. With best wishes and looking forward to more posts, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. For I.D.: *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee.for the U.N.; Netizsen ARPANet forward; other affiliations on Request. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi > > This is an issue we're currently looking at under the banner of the Freedom > of Expression Project (looking at the comms environment as a whole, but > obviously internet governance is a huge part of that). The TACD rights > charter is great, covering the same kinds of issues as our project policy > principles and the APC rights charter. I agree that there's important work > to be done in reaching out to consumers groups around IG issues, and a > strong presence at the IGF would be beneficial. > > We're working closely with the Consumers Union in the US, and through them > with other groups who are members of TACD (Public Knowledge, EFF, Epic etc), > and with Consumers International. I've just come back from the US national > conference for media reform where lots of IG issues (net neutrality, > filtering etc) are on the agenda. These are often looked at through the > lens of consumer rights, which seems to have greater resonance than human > rights in many arenas. We're looking at ways of bridging the gap between > consumer rights and human rights in ways that can strengthen the two > movements and the influence they have on communications policy. > > It'd be great to hear from anyone doing work in this area, or from any > consumers groups on this list. > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > Lisa Horner > > Head of Research and Policy Unit > > Global Partners and Associates > > 4th Floor Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1AH > > Office: + 44 207 861 3960 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 > > lisa at global-partners.co.uk > www.global-partners.co.uk < > http://server.global-partners.co.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.global-partners.co.uk/ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Mon 09/06/2008 08:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights workshop > > > hi bill > > [... > > > > There are a number of initiatives addressing rights issues in > relation to the Internet. Several organisations have developed frameworks > and charters (APC's Internet rights charter, the CRIS Framework, the Freedom > of Expression project's Principles document to name but a few) that map > existing rights in the context of the Internet and propose possible rights > based approaches. > > No TACD. Folks who are spearheading this proposal might want to > reach out to them...? > > > yes - i can update anna fielder (the TACD rep on the OECD civil society > coord group) on the proposal - consumer rights groups in general are not > very involved in ICT policy work or IG work.. but we've started to address > this in outreaching to consumers union and consumers international around > access to broadband > > robert guerra kindly introduced me to canadian CU groups which i haven't > followed up on > > it would be good if all workshop proponents - and the caucus in general - > look at how we can bring the consumer rights groups into the IGF more > generally.. > > karen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Jun 11 01:51:55 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:51:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0258020B@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, I fully agree with Bernard! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Skickat: den 9 juni 2008 17:51 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Ämne: [governance] Please summarize the discussion Dear Parminder, I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost track of this intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot find the time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now produced on the list. As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and what is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. Thanks in advance. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Wed Jun 11 05:44:42 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:44:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> Message-ID: <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five > simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked > for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty dull. > So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: >>> - Reaching the next billion >>> >>> ** Access >>> >>> ** Multilingualism. >>> >>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >>> >>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >>> >>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >>> >>> - Managing critical Internet resources >>> >>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >>> >>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and national/regional. >>> >>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>> >>> - Emerging issues. there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word "freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" (still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice ("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that the message from the MAG is clear! Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor level. Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the future of the Internet. So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the overall agenda? Thanks, -- 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Jun 11 06:23:24 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:23:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7233@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> I have to agree with Vittorio. Lumping openness and privacy together with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet governance. I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security issue. I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue. For example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a key means of achieving this). Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Adam Peake ha scritto: > I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five > simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked > for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty dull. > So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: >>> - Reaching the next billion >>> >>> ** Access >>> >>> ** Multilingualism. >>> >>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >>> >>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >>> >>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >>> >>> - Managing critical Internet resources >>> >>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >>> >>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and national/regional. >>> >>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>> >>> - Emerging issues. there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word "freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" (still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice ("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that the message from the MAG is clear! Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor level. Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the future of the Internet. So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the overall agenda? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jun 11 07:19:22 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:19:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <513B03CB-09EB-442F-985A-66EFA8C72530@ras.eu.org> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> <513B03CB-09EB-442F-985A-66EFA8C72530@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <484FB4BA.8080906@wzb.eu> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear Ken, > > Thanks for these inputs and explanations. I do understand your point on > 'universalization' and the risks this might convey. I do share your > concerns about dominant cultural schemes - which are already in place, > BTW. However, I'm not really convinced that here, these concerns have > been the reason why the word has been abandoned. In other words, you don't trust Ken's and Adam's reports? I can confirm what they said. > I'd be interested in hearing about the "various" reasons that led to > withdraw "of users". Is there another next billion to be reached? like a > billion of dollars?:) There were concerns about the connotation of the term users. In some or many countries "users" are seen as passive consumers not as producers of content or developers of software. This is why "users" was dropped. jeanette > > On your second point, I already noticed that the themes have > subheadings. But I'm not reassured at all. Especially when I see that > "Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional" > are only understood under "Managing critical Internet resources". Not to > mention those subheadings under "Promoting cyber-security and trust". > > I'm still of the opinion that this agenda is a business agenda, > including the guarantees expected from governments in view of > fullfilling this agenda. This is not at all satisfactory from a CS > viewpoint, at least not from my understanding. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 10 juin 08 à 12:17, Ken Lohento a écrit : > >> Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues >> >> 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of the >> people who indicated that we should not use “universalization of the >> internet” because it might be controversial. As you know, the word >> universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it refers to >> things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there are common >> to all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant cultural schemes, >> widely disseminated, may be qualified as universal. Many would argue >> that we do say “universal access” in health, in political economy, but >> “universalization of the internet”(contents also?) is a new invented >> term, of which content has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I >> prefer that we have something less controversial (in fact other people >> had the same argument against that phrase during the open >> consultations according to what I heard, and also some MAG people >> shared that opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be >> imposed on ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as >> William indicated. “Reaching the next billion of users” was then >> proposed to be only kept. I do think that this is more neutral and >> frankly, it indicates more directly what we want, which is access for >> all. However, other colleagues said it was better to withdraw “of >> users”, giving various reasons. I agree “reaching the next billion” >> may seem evangelical, but personally I prefer it (or rather I prefer >> “reaching the next billion of users”) to “universalization of the >> internet”. >> >> 2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of >> them is as follows (as in the draft program sent by Adam) >> >> - Reaching the next billion >> >> ** Access >> >> ** Multilingualism. >> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >> >> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >> >> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >> >> - Managing critical Internet resources >> >> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >> >> ** Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional. >> >> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >> >> - Emerging issues. >> >> So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and >> multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be discussed. >> This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG because a lot of >> people suggested (open consultations, written contributions, etc.), >> that we have headings differents from the four or five classic used in >> Athens and Rio (Access, Diversity, Security and Openness + CIR). >> >> Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion (I’m >> not sure this statement will be welcome but…:-) - And I believe was is >> essential is included, even though personally I’m not totally satisfied. >> >> That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding >> for workshop selection. (the main suggestion made by the MAG here >> is that some workshop are merged, because notably of logistical >> slots available and common themes. >> >> Finally, it’s still a rolling document and if we want to argue for >> some changes, there’s still room for that. >> >> Rgds >> >> Ken L >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 07:26:44 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:56:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0258020B@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20080611112656.A86C4E2132@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Bertrand, and others >As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and what is at stake here >? I'm a bit lost. I think the two emails written on the subject giving some key points of the discussions are quite useful to get a good sense it. I am enclosing these emails, and also cut-pasting below. To this I will add some more things, though I cant be sure how balanced it may look . And I have had to do this under some time constraints. The main issue has been about whether some persons closely connected with bodies involved in Internet governance (ICANN, RIRs etc) can also be representing CS and IGC in the MAG (in the sense that CS/ IGC actually nominates them to represent it), for stakeholder-wise speaking slots at the IGF etc. This is really THE issue which got discussed, though you may note that there are different ways in which it is characterized. One email below characterizes it ‘whether ‘technical internet governance institutions are CS, other quotes the nomcom report as speaking of the issue in relationship to ‘paid employees of these institutions’, though the nomcom reports at other places, and more often, speaks of ‘full time paid employees’. I myself prefer to speak of people who are centrally associated with these institutions, and can in general be seen as representing them. It is also relevant that this issue got discussed in a somewhat similar context when we developed our statement on MAG rotation to Feb consultations, whereby the final consensus statement included the following * In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. * Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. * We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. It is my impression that this consensus statement may have had effect on what nomcom reports (I would expect it, as other IGC discussions and statements, to inform nomcom’s working). McTim thinks that above IGC statement was contentious and should not have been considered by the nomcom. Since an amendment to the charter was proposed by McTim (see his email below) that nomcom rules make it explicit that the employment of any potential nominee will NOT be a relevant criterion for selecting IGC reps etc, the discussion went into whether this would apply to government employees, and those who may be employed in a substantive capacity by private sector companies with sufficient ‘policy related weight’ ..’ Those who supported the amendment seemed to be of the view that this is fine (I can be corrected on this) as long as the nominated persons have ‘CS credentials’. I inquired if we are going to ditch structural criterion for selecting CS nominees and go for ‘soft’ criterion like ‘CS credentials’ or ‘CS outlook’ can we then know what these could be . But on this point the discussion did not proceed further. Those who preferred that we do not exclude reps of these ‘internet gov institutions’ from IGC nomination argued that though these organizations make policy (which was the argument of the other side for excluding them from the CS category) the manner in which the policy is made by these organizations is so different, and so centrally involves the whole community in a such a continuous manner, that they should be considered CS. In case of these organizations the traditional policy-making body vis a vis civil society distinctions therefore do not apply. Those on this side of the argument also kept insisting that all those who work with these Int gov institutions (IGIs) have very solid CS credentials, and are really very close to the CS in all ways. The issue of what is technical community and how it is different or not from IGIs also came up, as it always in these discussions. The issue of how can the same group/ institutions – the IGIs – ask to be a separate category – a fourth stakeholder group - for selection to the MAG, and also have some members/ reps (?) going through CS/ IGC processes also came up (I think IGC did clearly say in Feb statement that IGIs should be represented on the MAG, though not through CS/IGC processes) Other members were insistent that to not nominate an IGI rep is to create distinctions among IGC members, while the charter claims that all members are equal. To this others argued that not choose as IGC rep due to potential conflict of interest doesn’t mean exclusion from the caucus I was very involved in these discussions, and am not quite sure if this is a balanced summary of the ‘real’ issues that got discussed. Some other issues got discussed like about making sure that nomcom sticks to existing nomcom rules for declaring its criteria beforehand, and what level of criteria will need to be written down, and what is the role/ responsibility of the caucus to communicate such criteria However, the real issue of contention was really the internet gov institutions employees/reps issue as described in the two emails below, and by me above.. Parminder (The other two emails that have tried to sum up the issue are as follows) Suresh wrote: Summary - 1. The nomcom says "technical internet governance institutions" like the RIRs are not civil society and not eligible to be nominated as civil society by the caucus 2. Some of us disagree 2a. Some of us also point out something others have pointed out, the nomcomm should have checked back with the caucus before taking this kind of decision. And McTim wrote: On May 22nd, I proposed that we amend http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html point 4 to read 4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. No disqualification can be made based upon the type of employment undertaken by members. I did this since the charter says "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." It doesn't seem fair that some members are less equal than others, based on employer. Bill has since proposed that we form a working group to unambiguously sort this out. The NomCom made a recommendation "that an independent Chair -either voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes associated with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a smoother operation, include . Clarification and weighting of selection criteria . Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates details . Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid employees of internet governance organisations . An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on NomComs . Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for future NomComs." Mike Gurstein made a motion that "we move on and that there be no further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group." _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: RE: [governance] Please summarize the discussion Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:15:34 +0530 Size: 10139 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "McTim" Subject: Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:03:19 +0530 Size: 9318 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Jun 11 08:36:02 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:36:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484FB4BA.8080906@wzb.eu> References: <006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484E549F.50903@panos-ao.org> <513B03CB-09EB-442F-985A-66EFA8C72530@ras.eu.org> <484FB4BA.8080906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Le 11 juin 08 à 13:19, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Dear Ken, >> Thanks for these inputs and explanations. I do understand your >> point on 'universalization' and the risks this might convey. I do >> share your concerns about dominant cultural schemes - which are >> already in place, BTW. However, I'm not really convinced that >> here, these concerns have been the reason why the word has been >> abandoned. > > In other words, you don't trust Ken's and Adam's reports? I can > confirm what they said. I don't see any reason that might lead you to infer this from what I've said. >> I'd be interested in hearing about the "various" reasons that led >> to withdraw "of users". Is there another next billion to be >> reached? like a billion of dollars?:) > > There were concerns about the connotation of the term users. In > some or many countries "users" are seen as passive consumers not as > producers of content or developers of software. This is why "users" > was dropped. I'm not sure this is a linguistic or cultural problem here: "users" is a generic term here, applying for citizens, consumers, producers, content producers, software developers, workers, whatever your "use" of computers and networks might be at one given time and for one given activity. If one really wants to make a context analysis in this specific case, "users" has neither positive nor negative connotation. Especially when one wants to simply *reach* them. Not to mention Guru's very relevant message pointing out that an important concern should be related to the word "next" rathen than "users". But anyway.. It's amazing how people may have such concerns, and not any on, say, "Promoting cyber-security and trust" or "Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?". Can you report of any discussion related to this, and/or related to the lack of any reference to rights? 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 11 10:22:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:22:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words "freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned about the abandonment of the "U"-word. What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five > > simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked > > for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty dull. > > So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. > > The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given > the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop > among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to > main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: > > >>> - Reaching the next billion > >>> > >>> ** Access > >>> > >>> ** Multilingualism. > >>> > >>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust > >>> > >>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >>> > >>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness > >>> > >>> - Managing critical Internet resources > >>> > >>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. > >>> > >>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and > national/regional. > >>> > >>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward > >>> > >>> - Emerging issues. > > there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word > "freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" > (still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose > other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is > repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same > group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice > ("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that > the message from the MAG is clear! > > Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, > but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have > been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for > the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have > the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor level. > > Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last > workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main > themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) > in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by > two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this > proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, > with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ > countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among > the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the > instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the > future of the Internet. > > So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it > was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the > overall agenda? > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 11 11:06:42 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:06:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned >about the abandonment of the "U"-word. > >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? is a good question. The paper is described as a rolling document "and will be updated as appropriate." I do not know if we can modify it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending comments as soon as possible. Send direct to the secretariat, they are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis papers, etc. I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too late for that. But changes will be made in September. The programme has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't any use as a programme at the moment. As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will have a great impact on the programme. For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" There will be a session "Arrangement for Internet Governance". IGP could volunteer to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new "main session workshop". The volunteer workshop organizers and the MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a stage full of panelists.) There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more attractive, but that's IGP's choice. If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. Unfortunately, for some sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30, there is time to do some tailoring. BTW -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd! Thanks, Adam >--MM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Jun 11 11:10:26 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:10:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <24453F1D-54E8-40AD-8F90-AA54F86D5203@psg.com> Hi, As I understand it, it is a rolling document. As such comments can be submitted and then those comments will be considered by the MAG and Secretariat in revising anything before the program is finalized. I think the deadline will be mid August. a. On 11 Jun 2008, at 10:22, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the > words > "freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned > about the abandonment of the "U"-word. > > What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change > anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme >> >> Adam Peake ha scritto: >>> I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five >>> simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments > asked >>> for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty > dull. >>> So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. >> >> The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that >> given >> the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop >> among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related >> to >> main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: >> >>>>> - Reaching the next billion >>>>> >>>>> ** Access >>>>> >>>>> ** Multilingualism. >>>>> >>>>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >>>>> >>>>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >>>>> >>>>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >>>>> >>>>> - Managing critical Internet resources >>>>> >>>>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >>>>> >>>>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and >> national/regional. >>>>> >>>>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>>>> >>>>> - Emerging issues. >> >> there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the > word >> "freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" >> (still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item > whose >> other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is >> repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same >> group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice >> ("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that >> the message from the MAG is clear! >> >> Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in >> practice, >> but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who > have >> been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" > for >> the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even >> have >> the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor > level. >> >> Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last >> workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the >> main >> themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by > some) >> in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration >> by >> two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting > this >> proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, >> with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ >> countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was > among >> the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the >> instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the >> future of the Internet. >> >> So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why >> it >> was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the >> overall agenda? >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu >> <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ >> <-------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jun 11 11:37:02 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:37:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <24453F1D-54E8-40AD-8F90-AA54F86D5203@psg.com> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <24453F1D-54E8-40AD-8F90-AA54F86D5203@psg.com> Message-ID: In message <24453F1D-54E8-40AD-8F90-AA54F86D5203 at psg.com>, at 11:10:26 on Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Avri Doria writes >As I understand it, it is a rolling document. As such comments can be >submitted and then those comments will be considered by the MAG and >Secretariat in revising anything before the program is finalized. I >think the deadline will be mid August. I would be very surprised if the "new" MAG, whenever that appears, doesn't change a few things 'just because they can'. It's an essential part of any political process - otherwise it won't look as if they are needed. The trick, of course, is to steer them towards making the changes your particular lobby wants. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 11 12:41:35 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:41:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderabad programme [sic] In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thanks, Adam, Very helpful. I understand the policy regarding merging with main sessions, and it seems fair and sensible. But we find taking practical followup steps somewhat confusing. I think the key question mark here is who we communicate with in the Secretariat, how, and when. Knowing the limitations on staff and resources do we try to call people in Geneva (time zone difference makes the window small), email them (just dump it in the igf at unog.ch pile?), email you and/or Avri and you act as intermediaries, modify our workshop proposal using the web site resource, hunt down Markus with bloodhounds ;-), etc? In terms of our approach to cooperation/merger on the RIR panel, our main concern is that we invested substantial effort in getting some new private sector actors involved, and possibly also some govt actors, beyond the "usual suspects," and we want to make sure that effort isn't wasted. Main session panels look like they will be a bit....complicated....given the number of actors involved, but it might be the best option. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:07 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words > >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned > >about the abandonment of the "U"-word. > > > >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change > >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? > > > is a good question. The paper is described as a rolling document > "and will be updated as appropriate." I do not know if we can modify > it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for > comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for > workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending > comments as soon as possible. Send direct to the secretariat, they > are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis > papers, etc. > > I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary > general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems > to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too > late for that. But changes will be made in September. The programme > has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the > programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't > any use as a programme at the moment. > > As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main > session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar > workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will > have a great impact on the programme. > > For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries: > The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" There will be a > session "Arrangement for Internet Governance". IGP could volunteer > to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops > that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new > "main session workshop". The volunteer workshop organizers and the > MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have > not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session > debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a > stage full of panelists.) > > There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more > attractive, but that's IGP's choice. > > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP > Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" > Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. Unfortunately, for some > sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit > as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30, > there is time to do some tailoring. > > BTW -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd! > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >--MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 13:59:59 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:59:59 +0300 Subject: More on Exclusion--verbose reply warning {was Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion} Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Parminder wrote: > > I think the two emails written on the subject giving some key points of the > discussions are quite useful to get a good sense it. I am enclosing these > emails, and also cut-pasting below. > > > > To this I will add some more things, though I cant be sure how balanced it > may look …. That's an understatement. > > The main issue has been about whether some persons closely connected with > bodies involved in Internet governance (ICANN, RIRs etc) can also be > representing CS and IGC in the MAG (in the sense that CS/ IGC actually > nominates them to represent it), for stakeholder-wise speaking slots at the > IGF etc. NO, that's NOT the "main issue", although it seems to be for you. I wonder why this is so important to you. It seems to me that you have your opinion on this issue, but several others of us have real life experiential knowledge to contradict your opinion. When confronted with the facts of our experience, you can't seem to accept that your opinion could possibly be wrong. The main issue is following instructions laid out in our charter, and how do we ensure that no discrimination against charter signers happens going forward. What you see is the main issue is simply criteria for nomcoms to use. > > > > This is really THE issue which got discussed, though you may note that there > are different ways in which it is characterized. One email below > characterizes it 'whether 'technical internet governance institutions are > CS, other quotes the nomcom report as speaking of the issue in relationship > to 'paid employees of these institutions', though the nomcom reports at > other places, and more often, speaks of 'full time paid employees'. I > myself prefer to speak of people who are centrally associated with these > institutions, and can in general be seen as representing them. ok, well I consider myself to be "centrally associated with these institutions", this is my "primary identity" (nomcoms terminology). Despite the fact that I have signed the charter, and the charter says we are all equal AND that Guru (your boss) has already said that I "could be clearly considered part of CS." How can I be considered CS if, by your argument, my "primary identity" and "central associations" are with IGIs? Can I or can I not be considered for the MAG nomination by this caucus? The answer, of course, is that I have signed the charter, and thus have the same rights as you or anyone else. We cannot discriminate against people based on a class of employer, "primary identity" or "central association" as much as you might like to. It violates the agreement we have made amongst ourselves. I chose not to allow folk to put my name forward this year, but I certainly don't rule it out for the future, according to your logic I would not be eligible. According to the charter, I would. I prefer the charter, which I think you signed. > > > It is also relevant that this issue got discussed in a somewhat similar > context when we developed our statement on MAG rotation to Feb > consultations, whereby the final consensus statement included the following > > > > In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of > MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary > General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. > The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made > open along with due justifications. This has no bearing on the issues at hand. > > > > Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory > groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this > round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders > assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. Neither does this. > > > > We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > > > It is my impression that this consensus statement may have had effect on > what nomcom reports (I would expect it, as other IGC discussions and > statements, to inform nomcom's working). McTim thinks that above IGC > statement was contentious of course it was contentious, this is not my opinion. but an assertion of fact. If one looks at the threads leading up to it, it is quite clear that this was contentious. > and should not have been considered by the nomcom. This is not what I said. What I said was they went much farther than this statement allows. They assumed authority not granted to them, and excluded people who have signed our charter (which says we all have equal rights). > > > Since an amendment to the charter was proposed by McTim (see his email > below) that nomcom rules make it explicit that the employment of any > potential nominee will NOT be a relevant criterion for selecting IGC reps > etc, the discussion went into whether this would apply to government > employees, and those who may be employed in a substantive capacity by > private sector companies with sufficient 'policy related weight'…..' Those > who supported the amendment seemed to be of the view that this is fine (I > can be corrected on this) as long as the nominated persons have 'CS > credentials'. My view is that if person x has signed the charter, she/he has equal rights. We cannot take those rights away because person x happens to work for org y. I inquired if we are going to ditch structural criterion for > selecting CS nominees and go for 'soft' criterion like 'CS credentials' or > 'CS outlook' can we then know what these could be…. But on this point the > discussion did not proceed further. As I have indicated many times, we as a caucus should not accept 'structural criteria" that violates our charter (unless we change said charter, first). > > > Those who preferred that we do not exclude reps of these 'internet gov > institutions' from IGC nomination argued that though these organizations > make policy No, that's another mischaracterization, these organisations themselves do NOT make policy, their communities make policies. (which was the argument of the other side for excluding them > from the CS category) which I think is nonsensical. The opinion that CS MUST always stand outside a power structure appears nowhere in any of the previously quoted definitions of CS. the manner in which the policy is made by these > organizations is so different, and so centrally involves the whole community > in a such a continuous manner, that they should be considered CS. NO, not "considered", it's that they ARE CS, according to every definition of CS found (on the web). In case of > these organizations the traditional policy-making body vis a vis civil > society distinctions therefore do not apply. That part is correct. Those on this side of the > argument also kept insisting that all those who work with these Int gov > institutions (IGIs) have very solid CS credentials, and are really very > close to the CS in all ways. again, a mischaracterisation, these people are not "close to CS in all ways" they ARE CS. > > > > The issue of what is technical community and how it is different or not from > IGIs also came up, as it always in these discussions. not brought up by me or those who support non-discrimination! > > > > The issue of how can the same group/ institutions – the IGIs – ask to be a > separate category – a fourth stakeholder group - for selection to the MAG, > and also have some members/ reps (?) going through CS/ IGC processes also > came up… as a red herring that you brought up. The fact is that you oppose the notion of a 4th stakeholder group AND say they can't be CS. They are not an official SH group, so MUST be CS, as they are neither PS nor gov (and not IGOs FWIW). (I think IGC did clearly say in Feb statement that IGIs should be > represented on the MAG, though not through CS/IGC processes) yes, you declared "rough consensus" on this in February. But what the nomcom did was not inline with this statement, it went much farther and excluded charter signers, in violation of the "equal rights" clause in the charter. > > > Other members were insistent that to not nominate an IGI rep is to create > distinctions among IGC members, while the charter claims that all members > are equal. To this others argued that not choose as IGC rep due to potential > conflict of interest doesn't mean exclusion from the caucus… which doesn't speak to the point of excluding charter signers from MAG nomination, when in fact we have nominated such persons before. > > > > I was very involved in these discussions, and am not quite sure if this is a > balanced summary of the 'real' issues that got discussed. I'm sure it is not balanced. Some other issues > got discussed like about making sure that nomcom sticks to existing nomcom > rules for declaring its criteria beforehand, and what level of criteria will > need to be written down, and what is the role/ responsibility of the caucus > to communicate such criteria… However, the real issue of contention was > really the internet gov institutions employees/reps issue as described in > the two emails below, and by me above.. This is A real issue of contention, but not the one before the caucus now. We have motions before the group and actions to take on the nomcoms recommendations. These are the "some other issues" that you refer to. They are the first order of business of the caucus IMO. -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Jun 11 14:10:28 2008 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:10:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <20080611112656.A86C4E2132@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080611112656.A86C4E2132@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48501514.7020904@jacquelinemorris.com> Parminder wrote: > > Dear Bertrand, and others > > >As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the main > actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main positions and > what is at stake here >? I'm a bit lost. > > I think the two emails written on the subject giving some key points > of the discussions are quite useful to get a good sense it. I am > enclosing these emails, and also cut-pasting below. > > To this I will add some more things, though I cant be sure how > balanced it may look …. And I have had to do this under some time > constraints. > > The main issue has been about whether some persons closely connected > with bodies involved in Internet governance (ICANN, RIRs etc) can also > be representing CS and IGC in the MAG (in the sense that CS/ IGC > actually nominates them to represent it), for stakeholder-wise > speaking slots at the IGF etc. > Actually, no - the main issue was whether the NomCom could have made the decision without going back to the caucus according to the rules. Everything stemmed from that. There was a lot of discussion on the actual decision made, but the central issue remains - was the NomCom overstepping its bounds to make the decision that it did - did it break the Caucus rules and charter. And some discussion as to how to adjust the rules so that future NomComs cannot break them. Jacqueline ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 19:51:58 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Towards a data analytic society Message-ID: This Article held an intresting insight, and as I am 'Famous' for posting items that may not apprear relevent to IG (as Suresh will undoubtably point out ;-) in the current realm of IG relevance, I was compelled to post it for its future value. Article Excerpt: "... The world is, of course, always changing and has always done so. Sometimes, however, it changes in a way that it becomes a different world: agrarian, capitalist, industrial revolutions, or the invention of printing, are examples. I’m fairly sure that future historians will point to the early 21st century as a time when the ways in which both societies and their individual members think about themselves went through that sort of radical shift within a very short time. And they will identify the transfer of data analytic approaches from scientific computing specialist to general population as the responsible agent. ..." -- Towards a data analytic society Felix Grant on the use of statistics in the analysis of society Scientific Computing World / DATA ANALYSIS: SOCIETY April/May 2008 http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=192 A city of 600k, drug-tested in one fell swoop. No exceptions, no consent sought. Dosage of everything from sugar to crystal meth recorded, tabulated, sorted and analysed. Not a scene from a paranoid TV drama, but a good example of scientific research interacting noninvasively with social policy. The project has not, so far as I know, yet been formally published at the time of writing, though it was presented to the American Chemical Society in August[1] and there has been plenty of press commentary[2][3]. Forty communities in Oregon were initially tested, with more planned, analysing small samples of water entering sewage treatment plants. And, interestingly, this ‘community urinalysis’ won at least guarded acceptance across the spectrum of opinion, from enforcement agencies to drug users. Shift up several levels, for example to the UNAIDS[4] mapping of AIDS incidence[5] in terms of continental populations, and there is little public attention at all. Shift down to the level where those citizens are themselves units of analysis, and they become less happy – but, despite all those paranoid TV dramas, less so than would once have been the case. There is increasing acceptance at all levels of the data analytic as a default approach to life. The fact of analysis occurring in societal contexts, in and of itself, has social impact. Computing in general, and scientific computing in particular, have brought many changes, but a data analytic view of the world is the one which will most separate the future from the past. We are in the middle of a revolution in the way populations and individuals think about the world, and computerised science is the trigger. There are three main components here: application of scientific methods to social policy, subliminal acceptance by individuals of a statistical view of themselves, and adoption of such views by individuals in looking outward onto their world. The AIDS mapping seems, to most people not affected by the issue, to have little to do with them at all. Most would say, if asked, that the figures illustrated are too big and too far away to handle. But such illustrations have, through campaign posters and public education leaflets, become part of the background informational wallpaper of life and this, in itself, acclimatises us to the normality of data analytic presentation. This acceptance of the top (social policy) layer of analysis is what progressively extends the middle layer where community urinalysis is now cautiously accepted. That acceptance could not always have been taken for granted. The apparent generality of the results, describing whole communities in broad brush, makes the whole exercise seem abstract – not so very different from the international AIDS mapping. Not so long ago, though, it would have seemed an invasion. Civil rights concerns would have seemed more of an issue. The perception has shifted: statistical aggregate scientific description of a social state has moved down from the international to the intranational or even lower, because it looks much the same. Community urinalysis makes it possible to very closely define and compare the level of (for example) cocaine use in Portland and Salem. Better still, those levels can be tracked very precisely over time, using frequent sample extraction. Daily sampling, or even several times a day, has already been suggested as a way to track the spread of new substances – methamphetamines being a topical chronic example; localised batches of badly cut heroin with toxic fillers is a recurrent acute case. In the Oregon study, fine-grained analysis of this kind showed methamphetamine usage to be geographically heterogenous to a high degree and comparatively stable over time, while cocaine use peaks and troughs on a weekly cycle. All of this, while staying general, produces specific changes that impact individuals. The fact that information on distribution of proscribed substance usage exists will inevitably influence the distribution of infrastructure funding. At least one European health authority is looking at the work in relation to sociospatial resource targeting. At least one police force has, as a direct result of the Oregon study reports, expensively seconded an officer to commercial premises with the broader agenda of acquiring expertise in the use of Sanitas groundwater analysis software. At least one military intelligence agency, with existing in-house analytic expertise in using SAS software to explore the strategic implications of water shortage, is interested in taking urinalysis down to smaller units than the city. Historically, there is a Darwinian social entropy in application of technologies and scientific methods. As long as they yield results, they diffuse through a society and become part of its fabric. The process is generally irreversible: the society becomes dependent, and withdrawal would be too traumatic. This is not doom-mongering: the diffusions are usually, at least in the long run and the broad picture, advantageous, and this one will be no different. There are cases (DDT comes to mind) where reversals do occur, but the principle is there: once community urinalysis has been accepted, it will progress and is unlikely to be abandoned. This principle applies also to the extending acceptance of statistical approaches to issues, and in particular to computer driven data analysis. Not only does it now underpin everything we do, but it propagates through what we are at a rate which far outpaces any other in history. The world is, of course, always changing and has always done so. Sometimes, however, it changes in a way that it becomes a different world: agrarian, capitalist, industrial revolutions, or the invention of printing, are examples. I’m fairly sure that future historians will point to the early 21st century as a time when the ways in which both societies and their individual members think about themselves went through that sort of radical shift within a very short time. And they will identify the transfer of data analytic approaches from scientific computing specialist to general population as the responsible agent. The penetration of individual social perception by scientific approaches begins, naturally enough, with scientists. Sam Roberts, application engineer at the MathWorks with a previous background in big pharma, recently mentioned to me in passing that he went into that field partly out of concern over the ethics of animal testing. He didn’t go onto the streets, nor into politics: he sought to shift the area of his concern from physical to conceptual realms. The micro array is, perhaps, the best symbol of modern science – which would have seemed quite extraordinary to practitioners of even 30 years ago. Looking at the vertical markets of a company like the MathWorks, and the products which have evolved to serve them, is instructive from a sociodynamic viewpoint. Matlab, as I’ve discovered over the last year or two, is as likely to be used in finance as in automotive and aeronautic control engineering. Indeed, control engineering is a concept that has escaped from its box, a term as likely to be used by molecular chemists or biologists as by the designers of jet aircraft. SimBiology, a market-specific Matlab extension into life science, applies Gillespie-style discrete event simulation modelling and other stochastic approaches to the study of biological systems and their components. If this all seems commonplace and obvious to you, ask yourself two questions: when did it become so, and what does your answer tell you about the rate of change in unconscious habits of thought in the society of which you are part? This move from directly thought models of the world to statistically evolved ones, though a direct result of scientific method, is adopted and adapted by those who would never think of themselves as scientists or even scientific. Computerisation doesn’t just make data analytic approaches ever more rapid and efficient; it drives their osmotic spread throughout human society. Gradually, such approaches become more and more commonly accepted as bases for decisions and judgements – not only by governments, but the governed too. In itself, this can only be a good thing, but it does release social forces that are not always predictable. I could follow the chain on from pharmaceuticals through industry to general commerce and into politics, the place of personal cellular communications, and so on, but space doesn’t permit it. Let’s, instead, make a leap straight down to the bottom of the pyramid. Scientists are also people, with families and friends and children: the conversation with Sam Roberts, above, started from a shared interest in out-of-hours work with teachers who want to encourage scientific thinking in children. Teaching is, as Postman and Weingartner[6] told us, a subversive activity; it is now the infection vector bringing together analytic thinking with the spread of cheap high technology. In SCW’s website education pages, last year[7], a teacher described an experiment in which 10- and 11-year-olds analytically considered development options within their school, relating funding options to costs and benefits. She commented that they were ‘interested in... using such methods to explore problem solving choices’, and ‘was astonished at... the degree of sophistication in their handling’. This is welcome news to those, like me, who are exercised by lack of critical thinking skills in new undergraduates; it may be seen as a mixed blessing to governments making such funding allocations on behalf of electorates. In the last couple of weeks I have seen this approach applied closer to the bone, by children of the same age using personal computers to evaluate through administrative spreadsheets the effectiveness of their own teachers. It’s not easy to hand over power in that way, but it’s certainly a good way to start building a critically-aware citizenry of the future. >From computer access to a connected machine in every school bag, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, is a huge leap – but thoroughly serious programmes are under way to bring it about. This has many implications, but I’m concerned here with those that flow from resulting universal access to easily used data stores and analytic tools. For most people, the first doorway through the wardrobe into data analysis is the ubiquitous spreadsheet. In affluent societies the initial running is being made by ‘netbook’ machines based on Intel’s Classmate pattern. One manifestation of this is a range of durable subnotebook machines from Asus (see the separate review on the SCW website[8] for more detail), with prices starting from roughly e200. A public falling out with the ‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC) project[9], dedicated to supplying children in the developing world with laptop computers, has intensified rather than cooled the race to put a processor in every pocket. OLPC machines are rugged, use low power consumption processors (supplied, in the absence of Intel, by AMD), charge from hand-cranked generators, have built-in wireless internet, and cost just over e130 (target cost, as economies of scale kick in, about e70). And their bundled office suite includes the all-important spreadsheet. The social implications of this are incalculable. Many rural African children have no paper, sharing slates between students; books and teachers may be in short supply; classes may be large and the student centred ideal is an impossible dream. The arrival of OLPC in such places will be an even greater revolution than in industrialised societies, leapfrogging more than a century of educational evolution. How governments buying these machines will be affected by their future results is anybody’s guess. M, a teacher in a developing world school that he doesn’t want identified, describes how he used a new supply of laptops in teaching the principles of simple bookkeeping for sole trader businesses. The following week, the students returned to him with their own spreadsheets applying the same principles to national economics and regional investment imbalances. Over the past few months, I’ve been exploring the impact of ICT saturation on small groups of both children and the adults (teachers, relatives, neighbours) in direct contact with them. I’ve had a set of Asus machines to play with, moving them around small projects with spreadsheets and SysQuake installed. One class, in cooperation with the local water company, conducted a community urinalysis of their school’s sewage outflow – though they tested for dietary and biological byproducts rather than proscribed substances. I’ve also been fortunate in my access to M’s school, where machines have arrived in quantity. In each case, the result of leaving the same machine in the same child’s hands 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has been a marked increase in data analytic approaches across all activity boundaries, at school and outside it. Having tools is not, of course, the same as having the material on which to use them; increasingly sophisticated analytic views means increasingly sophisticated data access. This, too, trickles down from the top tier where data extraction runs into much the same problems as in the hard sciences – and reaches for the same solutions. Admire (Advanced Data Mining and Integration Research for Europe), a three-year project coordinated from the University of Edinburgh, is doing for social data what University of Portsmouth’s Helen Xiang was doing through the NGS for astronomy[10] in the last issue: unifying queries on disparate, distributed and heterogenous data sources. This sort of query currently involves ruinously expensive time spent on minutely detailed specification of strategies, sources, and mechanisms. Admire seeks to subsume all that under a structure of internet and grid gateways, communicating through Infrastructure Service Bus-mediated services under high level language control. Crucial to this are semantic technologies, which are key to all future data access at my two lower levels. One of the initial proving ground scenarios returns to the theme of water, with an integrated application to make flood predictions from meteorological forecasts. The flow of information, and the restriction or shaping of that flow, have always been crucial to balances of power. In the 15th century, movable type paved the way for the Enlightenment; mass literacy and numeracy were engines of social change; the internet is the bane of repressive states, and rapidly modernising societies struggle to maintainequilibrium as they come to terms with it. In the long run, extensions of data access will work their way down to individual level and meet the universally available computing power. In a time of globalisation, that sets the scene for data analytic outlooks to produce a similar revolution in social structure whose outcome is impossible to guess. http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=192 -- References 1. Field, J., Sewage chemicals reveal evidence of illegal drug use, in News Service Weekly Press Package. 2007, American Chemical Society. 2. Thompson, C., The 7th Annual Year in Ideas.(Magazine). The New York Times Magazine, 2007: p. 62(L).0028-7822 3. Service, R.F., New York, Have You Ever Smoked Pot? ScienceNOW, 2007. 2007(822): p.3 et seq 4. UNAIDS. UNAIDS: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. http://unaids.org/. 5. UNAIDS. UNAIDS Knowledge Centre HIV Data. http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/default.asp. 6. Postman, N. and C. Weingartner, Teaching as a subversive activity. 1969: New York, Delacorte Press. 7. Beyond the Prisoner’s Dilemma. 2007 2007-06-20, 17:07 http://www.scientificcomputing.com/education/archives/42 8. Grant, F. Asus EEE PC. 2007 2008-04-14 [Review]. http://www.scientificcomputing.com/products/review_details.php?review_id=34. 9. One Laptop Per Child. http://laptop.org/ 10. Grant, F., Beyond the skies, in Scientific Computing World. 2008, Europa Science:Cambridge. p. 16-18. 1356-7853 Sources Advanced Micro Devices AMD processors Tel: +44-1276-803100 Fax:+44-1276-803227 RM Asus netbooks http://www.rm.com/ContactUs/Default.asp (Research Machines, Oxford) Intel Classmate specification http://www.intel.com/intel/worldahead/classmatepc/ Asus Eee PC http://asus.com One Laptop Per Child Laptops for developing world education information at laptop.org MathWorks Matlab. Simulink. Simbiology info at mathworks.co.uk Sanitas Technologies Sanitas software http://www.sanitastech.com/contact.html Calerga Sysquake info at calerga.com --- -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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 12 01:29:22 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:29:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <48501514.7020904@jacquelinemorris.com> References: <20080611112656.A86C4E2132@smtp3.electricembers.net> <48501514.7020904@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: <20080612052922.GD12315@hserus.net> Jacqueline A. Morris [11/06/08 14:10 -0400]: > actual decision made, but the central issue remains - was the NomCom > overstepping its bounds to make the decision that it did - did it break > the Caucus rules and charter. And some discussion as to how to adjust > the rules so that future NomComs cannot break them. This is what seems to have been proposed by multiple people - Michael Gurstein, Avri, etc. If Parminder could address it, and briefly this time, that'd be great. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Thu Jun 12 04:49:21 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:49:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights workshop In-Reply-To: <45ed74050806101014re5c0ed3yb63bbf5be6a7cb02@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080609074507.56E8153BF2B@mail.gn.apc.org> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00654F2@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <45ed74050806101014re5c0ed3yb63bbf5be6a7cb02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C725C@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Linda The mapping of existing rights instruments/documents relating to internet governance that you propose is something that the 'internet bill of rights' dynamic coalition is also proposing. I agree it's an important first step. You can find out more about the coalition at the website http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/ , which also has a link to the wiki and an option to join the mailing list. Related, but as part of a different project, I've been involved in an ongoing attempt to map out initiatives that aim to set principles and standards for communications policy - see more at http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreeme nts+and+principles . I also agree on your point about the importance of considering both rights and responsibilities, and think that the human rights framework can help to balance out many of the tensions we're facing in the internet arena, for example between security and openness. The next step is to engage with human rights advocates and practitioners to ensure that the human rights system is 'updated' and capable of addressing such issues in the internet environment....lots of work to be done! It'd be great to hear more about the outcomes of the session at the CFP conference, on or off-list. Many thanks, Lisa From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff Sent: 10 June 2008 18:15 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Cc: l.d. misek-falkoff Subject: Re: [governance] Rights workshop Dear Lisa and hi All: It's great to see such structural and thematic elements of 'rights' approaches coming into focus - for which discourse many thanks. Relatedly, in discussion at the recent 18th convening of "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy" - Yale Law School / Assoc. for Computing Machinery - 'sidebar' discussion took note of the dual: "rights and duties." One take on this frequent coupling is that when X (group or individual) wants or has rights, duties also attach. Another view is that when X claims or has rights, others have duties toward them. Both views and others seeme mutually compatible, just different dimensions and points of entry. Can we now gather and explore links to existing or "in the works" documents (instruments) asserting rights in the Internet Governance context(s), link to (access them, and examine together communally how rights and duties (or responsibilities) appear to play out in them? In principle and in proposed or achieved actions? This sharing and discussion can be a rich database of links or documents-proper to spring much interesting discussion, here on the list and / or at the next IGF. With best wishes and looking forward to more posts, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. For I.D.: *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee.for the U.N.; Netizsen ARPANet forward; other affiliations on Request. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: Hi This is an issue we're currently looking at under the banner of the Freedom of Expression Project (looking at the comms environment as a whole, but obviously internet governance is a huge part of that). The TACD rights charter is great, covering the same kinds of issues as our project policy principles and the APC rights charter. I agree that there's important work to be done in reaching out to consumers groups around IG issues, and a strong presence at the IGF would be beneficial. We're working closely with the Consumers Union in the US, and through them with other groups who are members of TACD (Public Knowledge, EFF, Epic etc), and with Consumers International. I've just come back from the US national conference for media reform where lots of IG issues (net neutrality, filtering etc) are on the agenda. These are often looked at through the lens of consumer rights, which seems to have greater resonance than human rights in many arenas. We're looking at ways of bridging the gap between consumer rights and human rights in ways that can strengthen the two movements and the influence they have on communications policy. It'd be great to hear from anyone doing work in this area, or from any consumers groups on this list. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Horner Head of Research and Policy Unit Global Partners and Associates 4th Floor Holborn Gate, 26 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1AH Office: + 44 207 861 3960 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 lisa at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk ________________________________ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Mon 09/06/2008 08:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Rights workshop hi bill [... There are a number of initiatives addressing rights issues in relation to the Internet. Several organisations have developed frameworks and charters (APC's Internet rights charter, the CRIS Framework, the Freedom of Expression project's Principles document to name but a few) that map existing rights in the context of the Internet and propose possible rights based approaches. No TACD. Folks who are spearheading this proposal might want to reach out to them...? yes - i can update anna fielder (the TACD rep on the OECD civil society coord group) on the proposal - consumer rights groups in general are not very involved in ICT policy work or IG work.. but we've started to address this in outreaching to consumers union and consumers international around access to broadband robert guerra kindly introduced me to canadian CU groups which i haven't followed up on it would be good if all workshop proponents - and the caucus in general - look at how we can bring the consumer rights groups into the IGF more generally.. karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 12 07:07:13 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7233@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7233@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Lisa, Vittorio, you're right to be concerned. I'm looking through the workshop proposals trying to find possible civil society proposed/oriented workshops that might merge to work on the main session workshops, and there's not much there on what should be the security/openness section. So comments below are not meant to defend the MAG, blame anyone, or defend how we've arrived at this situation. >I have to agree with Vittorio. Lumping openness and privacy together >with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and >trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human >rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet >governance. The way the IGF process works it needs someone to introduce an issue, to argue for it so it gets into the rolling documents (synthesis papers etc), and the caucus hasn't done that for "rights" (speaking for myself, no excuses, in the MAG I simply hadn't considered it, I'd have needed reminding.) Same answer really to Vittorio's question about the Bill of Rights coalition: I remember one statement read by Carlos in February, but that was more a call to join the coalition, not a contribution of themes or suggestion for the agenda (and February was the time for that.) Since then I can't remember any contribution, nothing about the agenda or any MAG document, no recommendation for a theme, not even an independent workshop proposal. So probably the concerns of the coalition won't be part of the meeting unless the coalition pushes them. >I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the >end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized >theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security >issue. Yes, they have been subsumed. However the programme's been emerging since February, the themes outlined in the summary of the February MAG meeting and the paper prepared for the May consultation are not so different from what's in the current Hyderabad paper. And there's been no reaction about this direction until now. I don't remember any comments following the February MAG paper saying hold on, this is the wrong direction we want rights/openness/ etc back in there in this particular way. The February summary also says "The final programme will be defined in light of the proposals made for holding workshops..." Looking back at the draft schedules in both those papers and then the workshops proposed by CS led organizing groups there aren't many that are a good fit with some of those proposed themes, particularly on the security/privacy/openness area. So now there's not much to work with to influence the main session workshops under the Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust heading. I don't see any CS led workshops relating to "Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?", probably also "Fostering security, privacy and openness", which is a surprise as it was intended as a session where the relationship (balance) between security, privacy and openness would be explored. Lisa, just seen your note replying to Linda where you say "the human rights framework can help to balance out many of the tensions we're facing in the internet arena, for example between security and openness", so there is room here to introduce the rights framework you're talking about, but not at the moment given the way the workshop proposals are written. We've been saying we support the idea of thematic workshops feeding into or linked to the main sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose workshops that do that. CS led proposals are certainly interesting (Global Partners and Associates on mainstreaming human rights, APC on sexual rights and the Internet/content regulation and the caucus on a rights agenda) but they are not well suited for moving over into the main sessions or to help define those sessions as they were developing from the February meeting. Perhaps the caucus' rights agenda for Internet governance could be re-worked so it could work with the "Fostering security, privacy and openness" workshop (though it would mean loosing the right to hold it as an individual workshop.) >I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for >rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel >sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue. Can write to the secretariat now expressing concerns and make proposals for the final programme. The programme will be discussed at the September meeting, comments will be taken into account (it's still a rolling document.) If we feel issues have been overlooked and the MAG can't find a balance of views in the group arranging a main session workshop then we can ask to bring in expertise from outside. An the obvious place to start looking for expertise would be the coalitions. Thanks, Adam >For >example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both >working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from >the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and >capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a >key means of achieving this).  > >Thanks, >Lisa > >-----Original Message----- >From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > >Adam Peake ha scritto: >> I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five >> simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked >> for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty >dull.  >> So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. > >The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given >the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop >among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to >main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: > >>>> - Reaching the next billion >>>> >>>> ** Access >>>> >>>> ** Multilingualism. >>>> >>>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >>>> >>>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >>>> >>>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >>>> >>>> - Managing critical Internet resources >>>> >>>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >>>> >>>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and >national/regional. >>>> >>>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>>> >>>> - Emerging issues. > >there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word > >"freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" >(still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose > >other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is >repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same >group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice >("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that >the message from the MAG is clear! > >Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, >but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have > >been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for >the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have >the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor >level. > >Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last >workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main >themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) > >in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by >two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this > >proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, >with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ >countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among >the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the >instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the >future of the Internet. > >So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it >was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the >overall agenda? > >Thanks, >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 12 07:41:26 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:41:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderabad programme [sic] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB78D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7902@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 12:41 PM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Thanks, Adam, >Very helpful. I understand the policy regarding merging with main >sessions, and it seems fair and sensible. But we find taking practical >followup steps somewhat confusing. I think the key question mark here is >who we communicate with in the Secretariat, how, and when. Details are being discussed on the MAG list now. But if you want to volunteer, write to the secretariat , cc me if you like. There haven't been many volunteers (I guess no one seems quite sure what to do), so once the MAG's discussions are done I expect the secretariat will send email to most workshop organizers (those that look like they have a topic related to a main theme) asking if they would like to join a main workshop organizing group. And anyone who has submitted a workshop proposal, particularly the caucus, should look at the main session workshop titles and see if they would like to volunteer to merge their workshop. The workshop themes are: Access Multilingualism Are we losing the battle against cybercrime? Fostering Security Privacy and Openness Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 Arrangement for Internet Governance - Global, National/Regional I hope two or three proposals/organizing groups will want to merge, at least one of which will be CS, but will depend on the session (I don't see obvious civil society proposed/oriented workshops on (1) Are we losing the battle against cybercrime? (2) Fostering Security Privacy and Openness.) Then a few MAG members and the workshop organizers will start trying to arrange a session that draws together ideas from each group. That workshop will then have 90 minutes in the main hall (interpretation etc) and with it's partner workshop be the basis for debate in the afternoon. In the morning there will be panelists, discussants, whatever the workshop organizers think best (but not the massive panels we've had in Athens and Rio). In the afternoon, the MAG knows it wants one person from each morning session to give a recap of outcomes, and possibly (we don't agree) two or three people to sit on stage and keep things moving. Workshops will also need to think about issues like balancing gender, region, stakeholder (point of view.) If there are people on the stage in the afternoons, then any balancing will be across all debates, not for each. I am not sure it'll work, but it's come from the desire to reduce the panelist presentation format, to involve people other than the MAG in designing sessions, involve the workshop organizers who are the people who really contribute to the IGF. >Knowing the limitations on staff and resources do we try to call people >in Geneva (time zone difference makes the window small), email them >(just dump it in the igf at unog.ch pile?), email you and/or Avri and you >act as intermediaries, modify our workshop proposal using the web site >resource, hunt down Markus with bloodhounds ;-), etc? Send the secretariat email cc me. Can't speak for Avri, but can't see her doing anything other than help! >In terms of our approach to cooperation/merger on the RIR panel, our >main concern is that we invested substantial effort in getting some new >private sector actors involved, and possibly also some govt actors, >beyond the "usual suspects," and we want to make sure that effort isn't >wasted. Main session panels look like they will be a >bit....complicated....given the number of actors involved, but it might >be the best option. I think that's a concern many will have. Anyone with a well thought out proposal will most likely have already put in a lot of work, so not an easy decision to drop that and take a bit of a risk on getting the same message over in the new merged workshop. BTW - I only used the IGP RIR panel proposal as an example, the JPA proposal could as easily fit under "Arrangement for Internet Governance" Thanks, Adam > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:07 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme >> >> At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the >words >> >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned >> >about the abandonment of the "U"-word. >> > >> >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change >> >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? >> >> >> is a good question. The paper is described as a rolling document >> "and will be updated as appropriate." I do not know if we can modify >> it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for >> comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for >> workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending >> comments as soon as possible. Send direct to the secretariat, they >> are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis >> papers, etc. >> >> I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary >> general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems >> to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too >> late for that. But changes will be made in September. The programme >> has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the >> programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't >> any use as a programme at the moment. >> >> As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main >> session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar >> workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will >> have a great impact on the programme. >> >> For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries: >> The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" There will be a >> session "Arrangement for Internet Governance". IGP could volunteer >> to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops >> that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new >> "main session workshop". The volunteer workshop organizers and the >> MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have >> not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session >> debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a >> stage full of panelists.) >> >> There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more >> attractive, but that's IGP's choice. >> >> If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will >> loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP >> Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" >> Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. Unfortunately, for some >> sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit >> as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30, >> there is time to do some tailoring. >> >> BTW -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >--MM >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 09:34:01 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] How to move forward ? (was : summarizing) Message-ID: <954259bd0806120634n236efb1fxca8a9caa1d98981c@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Thanks for summarizing. Now, how do we move forward ? (apologies for the long post) If I understand well, there were *two basic issues* : 1. a *process *issue : did the NomCom overstep its mandate and not respect the Charter in making a decision using additional criteria without coming back to the Caucus ? 2. a *substantive *issue : is there agreement within the caucus regarding the decision itself (ie : to exclude some candidates based on their specific affiliation) ? Regarding the (lengthy) discussions : a very rapid reading of some posts (and please correct me if I'm wrong) gives the impression that the caucus as a whole : - considers that in a certain way the response to the first (process) question is more or less yes : the NomCom should probably have come back to the caucus, - remains of diverse opinions regarding the second point (whether this criteria should have been applied at all) *How big is the problem ?* Were there a broad agreement within the caucus that the decision itself (ie the exclusion of some candidates because of their affiliation) was basically right, all we would need to do is to envisage a Charter modification to make the process clearer (preliminary posting of criteria, coming back to the caucus for any additional criteria ....). But there would be no urgency to do it right now and we could all focus for the moment on the preparation of the IGF Hyderabad itself. If there is indeed disagreement within the caucus on the decision itself, we do have a problem. But we can go on arguing for the next three months about this in more and more divisive discussions or try to move forward. And in that respect, the critical question is : how big is this problem ? Which boils down to the following *two simple alternatives *: Q1 : does the list consider that :A) the existing slate of proposed candidates, all in all, compose a sufficiently balanced group of valid candidates that we can live with ? or B) that this selection is so grossly weakened by the exclusion of some specific candidates, that we need to reopen the process ? Q2 :does the list consider that : A) whatever criticism we may have regarding the procedure followed, we need to/can move on this year and reform the process in the future after due discussion ? or B) that the violation is important enough to have delegitimized the NomCom work and this justifies a re-run (partial or total) ? *Should we move forward or reopen the process ? * Unless a strong consensus emerges around answers Q1 B and Q2 B (which by the way begs the question of the modalities of it : new nomcom or not,....), my sense is we should move forward and focus for the moment on the preparation of Hyderabad. If readers on the list agree with this way of posing the problem (and objections are of course possible), the key question is simple : *Does this debate justify in your view a re-run of the NomCom process ? YES (we need to reopen the process) NO (let's move forward) * Can people on the list please forward to the coordinator their answer to this question ? I would personally vote *NO, let's move forward, *irrespective of my position on the substance, and also in due consideration to the commendable effort that the NomCom has indeed put into its selection process. The important specific issue that triggered this whole debate does not diminish the rest of their work and NomComs are always the natural targets of criticism. *Finally : Let's take this as an opportunity and not a division* On a more general note, this discussion has put in full light, once again, important questions that have regularly erupted on the list and must eventually be addressed - albeit hopefully in a more constructive manner. They are : the notion of stakeholders, "Civil society credentials", the very nature of this list and criteria for participation in multi-stakeholder bodies. These are no minor issues but we must not let them trigger ad hominem arguments. They are rather an important opportunity for the caucus to make a positive contribution to clarifying what multi-stakeholder processes are and how they should function. This is the natural continuation of what we have collectively produced during the WSIS and should be legitimately proud of : the very concept of a multi-stakeholder Forum and the very definition of Internet Governance. Continuing this work is our common responsibility. We do have different viewpoints, because of our different origins, experiences and, yes, affiliations. But this is precisely what makes the caucus valuable and the core online space where such - heated :-)- discussions can take place in order to make the IGF an even greater success than it already is. The the way we will address those critical issues in the coming months will determine the ongoing usefulness of the caucus for its members and its credibility in the eyes of others. I am sure we can rise up to the challenge and produce something that is truly useful. I hope all this helps. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 10:18:49 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:18:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] How to move forward ? (was : summarizing) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0806120634n236efb1fxca8a9caa1d98981c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0806120634n236efb1fxca8a9caa1d98981c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Bertrand, Thank you for your very diplomatic and succinct summary. I agree completely that there is a process issue and a substantive issue. For the rest, according to the charter, there doesn't seem to me a mechanism for us to revisit the nomcoms decisions on particular candidates (nor has anyone called for it IIRC). My personal opinion is that we should follow the nomcoms plea to get this all sorted out (see their recommendations list) before we "move on". I find it quite troubling that so many are pushing a "rights agenda" for the Internet, but can willingly turn their backs on a "rights issue" inside the caucus itself. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for summarizing. Now, how do we move forward ? (apologies for the > long post) > > If I understand well, there were two basic issues : > > a process issue : did the NomCom overstep its mandate and not respect the > Charter in making a decision using additional criteria without coming back > to the Caucus ? > a substantive issue : is there agreement within the caucus regarding the > decision itself (ie : to exclude some candidates based on their specific > affiliation) ? > > Regarding the (lengthy) discussions : a very rapid reading of some posts > (and please correct me if I'm wrong) gives the impression that the caucus as > a whole : > > considers that in a certain way the response to the first (process) question > is more or less yes : the NomCom should probably have come back to the > caucus, > remains of diverse opinions regarding the second point (whether this > criteria should have been applied at all) > > How big is the problem ? > > Were there a broad agreement within the caucus that the decision itself (ie > the exclusion of some candidates because of their affiliation) was basically > right, all we would need to do is to envisage a Charter modification to make > the process clearer (preliminary posting of criteria, coming back to the > caucus for any additional criteria ....). But there would be no urgency to > do it right now and we could all focus for the moment on the preparation of > the IGF Hyderabad itself. > > If there is indeed disagreement within the caucus on the decision itself, we > do have a problem. But we can go on arguing for the next three months about > this in more and more divisive discussions or try to move forward. And in > that respect, the critical question is : how big is this problem ? Which > boils down to the following two simple alternatives : > > Q1 : does the list consider that : > A) the existing slate of proposed candidates, all in all, compose a > sufficiently balanced group of valid candidates that we can live with ? or > B) that this selection is so grossly weakened by the exclusion of some > specific candidates, that we need to reopen the process ? > Q2 :does the list consider that : > A) whatever criticism we may have regarding the procedure followed, we need > to/can move on this year and reform the process in the future after due > discussion ? or > B) that the violation is important enough to have delegitimized the NomCom > work and this justifies a re-run (partial or total) ? > > Should we move forward or reopen the process ? > > Unless a strong consensus emerges around answers Q1 B and Q2 B (which by > the way begs the question of the modalities of it : new nomcom or not,....), > my sense is we should move forward and focus for the moment on the > preparation of Hyderabad. > > If readers on the list agree with this way of posing the problem (and > objections are of course possible), the key question is simple : > > Does this debate justify in your view a re-run of the NomCom process ? > > YES (we need to reopen the process) NO (let's move forward) > > Can people on the list please forward to the coordinator their answer to > this question ? > > I would personally vote NO, let's move forward, irrespective of my position > on the substance, and also in due consideration to the commendable effort > that the NomCom has indeed put into its selection process. The important > specific issue that triggered this whole debate does not diminish the rest > of their work and NomComs are always the natural targets of criticism. > > Finally : Let's take this as an opportunity and not a division > > On a more general note, this discussion has put in full light, once again, > important questions that have regularly erupted on the list and must > eventually be addressed - albeit hopefully in a more constructive manner. > They are : the notion of stakeholders, "Civil society credentials", the very > nature of this list and criteria for participation in multi-stakeholder > bodies. These are no minor issues but we must not let them trigger ad > hominem arguments. > > They are rather an important opportunity for the caucus to make a positive > contribution to clarifying what multi-stakeholder processes are and how they > should function. This is the natural continuation of what we have > collectively produced during the WSIS and should be legitimately proud of : > the very concept of a multi-stakeholder Forum and the very definition of > Internet Governance. Continuing this work is our common responsibility. > > We do have different viewpoints, because of our different origins, > experiences and, yes, affiliations. But this is precisely what makes the > caucus valuable and the core online space where such - heated :-)- > discussions can take place in order to make the IGF an even greater success > than it already is. > > The the way we will address those critical issues in the coming months will > determine the ongoing usefulness of the caucus for its members and its > credibility in the eyes of others. I am sure we can rise up to the challenge > and produce something that is truly useful. > > I hope all this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Thu Jun 12 11:11:28 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:11:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <008a01c8cae4$de0b83f0$ccc2ca0a@IAN> <484F9E8A.8020709@bertola.eu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7233@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7293@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks for these clarifications Adam. I'm sorry for not raising any of these concerns earlier - I haven't participated directly in the consultations owing to time constraints and wrongly assumed that other people would be carrying the 'rights flag'. I've resolved to engage more actively from now on. Is there any opportunity for us to get involved in shaping the main workshops aside from the option of merging workshops? I do think it's important that rights aren't only seen as a security issue. However, there was an excellent workshop organized by unesco/osce on the intersection of security and rights last year - is anyone who was involved on this list? Is there any interest within this caucus of presenting the under-representation of openness/rights issues within the main agenda to the secretariat as a shared concern? Either of the caucus as a whole, or of a group of us? Any ideas Vittorio? Obviously the bill of rights coalition would probably be interested too. I realise that the caucus submitted comments on themes for the IGF in February, and it was proposed that openness should be a cross-cutting issue. It was also proposed that the IGF should focus on how to uphold the Geneva principles, and these reaffirm a commitment to human rights. So I don't think that going back and stressing a commitment to seeing openness and/or rights more substantively on the agenda, or stated explicitly as a cross-cutting theme, would be contradicting earlier proposals. Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 12 June 2008 12:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Lisa, Vittorio, you're right to be concerned. I'm looking through the workshop proposals trying to find possible civil society proposed/oriented workshops that might merge to work on the main session workshops, and there's not much there on what should be the security/openness section. So comments below are not meant to defend the MAG, blame anyone, or defend how we've arrived at this situation. >I have to agree with Vittorio. Lumping openness and privacy together >with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and >trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human >rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet >governance. The way the IGF process works it needs someone to introduce an issue, to argue for it so it gets into the rolling documents (synthesis papers etc), and the caucus hasn't done that for "rights" (speaking for myself, no excuses, in the MAG I simply hadn't considered it, I'd have needed reminding.) Same answer really to Vittorio's question about the Bill of Rights coalition: I remember one statement read by Carlos in February, but that was more a call to join the coalition, not a contribution of themes or suggestion for the agenda (and February was the time for that.) Since then I can't remember any contribution, nothing about the agenda or any MAG document, no recommendation for a theme, not even an independent workshop proposal. So probably the concerns of the coalition won't be part of the meeting unless the coalition pushes them. >I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the >end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized >theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security >issue. Yes, they have been subsumed. However the programme's been emerging since February, the themes outlined in the summary of the February MAG meeting and the paper prepared for the May consultation are not so different from what's in the current Hyderabad paper. And there's been no reaction about this direction until now. I don't remember any comments following the February MAG paper saying hold on, this is the wrong direction we want rights/openness/ etc back in there in this particular way. The February summary also says "The final programme will be defined in light of the proposals made for holding workshops..." Looking back at the draft schedules in both those papers and then the workshops proposed by CS led organizing groups there aren't many that are a good fit with some of those proposed themes, particularly on the security/privacy/openness area. So now there's not much to work with to influence the main session workshops under the Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust heading. I don't see any CS led workshops relating to "Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?", probably also "Fostering security, privacy and openness", which is a surprise as it was intended as a session where the relationship (balance) between security, privacy and openness would be explored. Lisa, just seen your note replying to Linda where you say "the human rights framework can help to balance out many of the tensions we're facing in the internet arena, for example between security and openness", so there is room here to introduce the rights framework you're talking about, but not at the moment given the way the workshop proposals are written. We've been saying we support the idea of thematic workshops feeding into or linked to the main sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose workshops that do that. CS led proposals are certainly interesting (Global Partners and Associates on mainstreaming human rights, APC on sexual rights and the Internet/content regulation and the caucus on a rights agenda) but they are not well suited for moving over into the main sessions or to help define those sessions as they were developing from the February meeting. Perhaps the caucus' rights agenda for Internet governance could be re-worked so it could work with the "Fostering security, privacy and openness" workshop (though it would mean loosing the right to hold it as an individual workshop.) >I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for >rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel >sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue. Can write to the secretariat now expressing concerns and make proposals for the final programme. The programme will be discussed at the September meeting, comments will be taken into account (it's still a rolling document.) If we feel issues have been overlooked and the MAG can't find a balance of views in the group arranging a main session workshop then we can ask to bring in expertise from outside. An the obvious place to start looking for expertise would be the coalitions. Thanks, Adam >For >example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both >working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from >the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and >capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a >key means of achieving this).  > >Thanks, >Lisa > >-----Original Message----- >From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > >Adam Peake ha scritto: >> I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five >> simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked >> for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty >dull.  >> So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. > >The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given >the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop >among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to >main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: > >>>> - Reaching the next billion >>>> >>>> ** Access >>>> >>>> ** Multilingualism. >>>> >>>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust >>>> >>>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? >>>> >>>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness >>>> >>>> - Managing critical Internet resources >>>> >>>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. >>>> >>>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and >national/regional. >>>> >>>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>>> >>>> - Emerging issues. > >there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word > >"freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" >(still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose > >other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is >repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same >group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice >("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that >the message from the MAG is clear! > >Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, >but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have > >been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for >the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have >the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor >level. > >Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last >workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main >themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) > >in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by >two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this > >proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, >with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ >countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among >the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the >instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the >future of the Internet. > >So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it >was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the >overall agenda? > >Thanks, >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 12 11:56:35 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:56:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Please summarize the discussion In-Reply-To: <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> References: <954259bd0806090851g7713a42n92cae3a382a5017a@mail.gmail.com> <484D5F46.2060606@rits.org.br> <52DA3CF6-F938-4F12-9D62-8E1FDE96BB55@ras.eu.org> <009801c8cade$bce7fdd0$36b7f970$@net> Message-ID: <48514733.3090508@rits.org.br> Hmmmm... this confusion happens in part because of the insistence of some to characterize the technical community per se as a stakeholder. Strange that the nomcom says that of RIRs, at least regarding our region. LACNIC (the LA&C RIR) is a non-profit civil society NGO formally registered in Uruguay. This is one of the reasons why the LA&C caucus accepted Raul Echeberría as a candidate to be indicated by the caucus for the MAG -- and he was one of the first three indicated by our caucus, as you recall. frt rgds --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Summary - > > 1. The nomcom says "technical internet governance institutions" like the > RIRs are not civil society and not eligible to be nominated as civil society > by the caucus > > 2. Some of us disagree > > 2a. Some of us also point out something others have pointed out, the nomcomm > should have checked back with the caucus before taking this kind of > decision. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:33 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion >> >> Agree on the need for a summary. Especially since the discussion >> risks to be now focused on other issues (programme and close deadlines). >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 9 juin 08 à 18:50, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >>> You are not alone, Bertrand. It has become nearly impossible to >>> follow... >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> I must confess that - as many people apparently - I have lost >>>> track of this >>>> intense debate and having had a few other things to do, I cannot >>>> find the >>>> time to read the flurry of - often long - emails it has now >>>> produced on the >>>> list. >>>> As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the >>>> main >>>> actors involved if necessary, summarize briefly the main >>>> positions and what >>>> is at stake here ? I'm a bit lost. >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> Best >>>> Bertrand >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 12 12:48:55 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:18:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7293@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20080612164908.1BECA678B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG on these omissions - about openness and freedoms/ rights. We could specifically propose that the main theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it better) And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are (1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? (2) Fostering security, privacy and openness Instead should be (1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? (2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the same security issues in (2) as well.. In the same letter we should congratulate the MAG for selecting "Internet for All' as the overall theme, especially with the mention that this term is adopted from or was in analogy with the UNESCO's 'Education for All' Further to it we should say that 'reaching the next billion' does not appear the right sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons that we have discussed) and that if the universalization term is somehow found unclear (which assertion we find somewhat strange, since this is used in so many contexts in policy circles, including global ones) we can use the term 'Ensuring (or Achieving) Universal Access' which should be no problem at all because almost all countries have universal access provisions in their telecom policies. In the same letter we can also mention that we find the new format of a greater relationship between stakeholder organized workshops and the main workshop space a very good innovation or development. If we so believe, we may also say that the wholly open main session debates format is a good development, though I am still not clear how this debate will take place, and some integrity to the whole process ensured. Parminder , -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Thanks for these clarifications Adam. > > I'm sorry for not raising any of these concerns earlier - I haven't > participated directly in the consultations owing to time constraints and > wrongly assumed that other people would be carrying the 'rights flag'. > I've resolved to engage more actively from now on. > > Is there any opportunity for us to get involved in shaping the main > workshops aside from the option of merging workshops? I do think it's > important that rights aren't only seen as a security issue. However, > there was an excellent workshop organized by unesco/osce on the > intersection of security and rights last year - is anyone who was involved > on this list? > > Is there any interest within this caucus of presenting the under- > representation of openness/rights issues within the main agenda to the > secretariat as a shared concern? Either of the caucus as a whole, or of a > group of us? Any ideas Vittorio? Obviously the bill of rights coalition > would probably be interested too. > > I realise that the caucus submitted comments on themes for the IGF in > February, and it was proposed that openness should be a cross-cutting > issue. It was also proposed that the IGF should focus on how to uphold > the Geneva principles, and these reaffirm a commitment to human rights. > So I don't think that going back and stressing a commitment to seeing > openness and/or rights more substantively on the agenda, or stated > explicitly as a cross-cutting theme, would be contradicting earlier > proposals. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: 12 June 2008 12:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Lisa, Vittorio, you're right to be concerned. I'm > looking through the workshop proposals trying to > find possible civil society proposed/oriented > workshops that might merge to work on the main > session workshops, and there's not much there on > what should be the security/openness section. So > comments below are not meant to defend the MAG, > blame anyone, or defend how we've arrived at this > situation. > > > >I have to agree with Vittorio. Lumping openness and privacy together > >with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and > >trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human > >rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet > >governance. > > > The way the IGF process works it needs someone to > introduce an issue, to argue for it so it gets > into the rolling documents (synthesis papers > etc), and the caucus hasn't done that for > "rights" (speaking for myself, no excuses, in the > MAG I simply hadn't considered it, I'd have > needed reminding.) Same answer really to > Vittorio's question about the Bill of Rights > coalition: I remember one statement read by > Carlos in February, but that was more a call to > join the coalition, not a contribution of themes > or suggestion for the agenda (and February was > the time for that.) Since then I can't remember > any contribution, nothing about the agenda or any > MAG document, no recommendation for a theme, not > even an independent workshop proposal. So > probably the concerns of the coalition won't be > part of the meeting unless the coalition pushes > them. > > > >I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the > >end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized > >theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security > >issue. > > > Yes, they have been subsumed. However the > programme's been emerging since February, the > themes outlined in the summary of the February > MAG meeting > > and the paper prepared for the May consultation > Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf> > are not so different from what's in the current > Hyderabad paper. And there's been no reaction > about this direction until now. I don't remember > any comments following the February MAG paper > saying hold on, this is the wrong direction we > want rights/openness/ etc back in there in this > particular way. > > The February summary also says "The final > programme will be defined in light of the > proposals made for holding workshops..." Looking > back at the draft schedules in both those papers > and then the workshops proposed by CS led > organizing groups there aren't many that are a > good fit with some of those proposed themes, > particularly on the security/privacy/openness > area. > > So now there's not much to work with to influence > the main session workshops under the Promoting > Cyber-Security and Trust heading. I don't see any > CS led workshops relating to "Are we losing the > battle against cyber-crime?", probably also > "Fostering security, privacy and openness", which > is a surprise as it was intended as a session > where the relationship (balance) between > security, privacy and openness would be explored. > Lisa, just seen your note replying to Linda where > you say "the human rights framework can help to > balance out many of the tensions we're facing in > the internet arena, for example between security > and openness", so there is room here to introduce > the rights framework you're talking about, but > not at the moment given the way the workshop > proposals are written. > > We've been saying we support the idea of thematic > workshops feeding into or linked to the main > sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose > workshops that do that. CS led proposals are > certainly interesting (Global Partners and > Associates on mainstreaming human rights, APC on > sexual rights and the Internet/content regulation > and the caucus on a rights agenda) but they are > not well suited for moving over into the main > sessions or to help define those sessions as they > were developing from the February meeting. > > Perhaps the caucus' rights agenda for Internet > governance could be re-worked so it could work > with the "Fostering security, privacy and > openness" workshop (though it would mean loosing > the right to hold it as an individual workshop.) > > > > >I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for > >rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel > >sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue. > > > Can write to the secretariat now expressing > concerns and make proposals for the final > programme. The programme will be discussed at the > September meeting, comments will be taken into > account (it's still a rolling document.) > > If we feel issues have been overlooked and the > MAG can't find a balance of views in the group > arranging a main session workshop then we can ask > to bring in expertise from outside. An the > obvious place to start looking for expertise > would be the coalitions. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >For > >example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both > >working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from > >the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and > >capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a > >key means of achieving this). > > > >Thanks, > >Lisa > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > >Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > >Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > >Adam Peake ha scritto: > >> I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five > >> simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked > >> for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty > >dull. > >> So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. > > > >The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given > >the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop > >among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to > >main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: > > > >>>> - Reaching the next billion > >>>> > >>>> ** Access > >>>> > >>>> ** Multilingualism. > >>>> > >>>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust > >>>> > >>>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >>>> > >>>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness > >>>> > >>>> - Managing critical Internet resources > >>>> > >>>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. > >>>> > >>>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and > >national/regional. > >>>> > >>>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward > >>>> > >>>> - Emerging issues. > > > >there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word > > > >"freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" > >(still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose > > > >other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is > >repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same > >group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice > >("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that > >the message from the MAG is clear! > > > >Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, > >but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have > > > >been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for > >the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have > >the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor > >level. > > > >Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last > >workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main > >themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) > > > >in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by > >two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this > > > >proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, > >with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ > >countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among > >the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the > >instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the > >future of the Internet. > > > >So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it > >was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the > >overall agenda? > > > >Thanks, > >-- > >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 12 13:11:26 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:11:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom Message-ID: Hi, I just sent email about revising the caucus nomcom procedures to the old "Multistakeholder Modalities WG". I don't remember the exact purpose of the Mmwg, but it seems a reasonable place to hold a discussion about the nomcom. Anyone interested in revising the nomcom procedures and not already subscribed to the mmwg list, you can join by: , or (same info, plus open archive address in header below.) Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >X-Original-To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org >Delivered-To: mmwg at mail.gn.apc.org >Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:58:12 +0900 >To: MMWG >From: Adam Peake >Subject: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom >X-BeenThere: mmwg at wsis-cs.org >List-Id: Multistakeholder Modalities WG >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org > >Hi, > >If this list is still alive (find out in a moment) it might be the >place to begin discussing amendments to the caucus nomcom procedures. > >Some information that might be helpful: > >Caucus website > >Caucus charter > >Current nomcom process , >and as it's the focus, copied below. > >The charter says: > >"All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder >advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process >as defined in " > >And the nomcom process: > >"Randomly selected nominating committee > >In an effort to foster full inclusion in the process of selecting the >appeals board and any other appointments the IGC may make other then >the election of coordinators, a nominating committee process will be >used. A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members >selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. > >NomCom Process Details: > >1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee >(nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of >appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be >decided. > >One month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the >criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be >used to discuss and decide on candidates. > >2. At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, >are required for running the random process. > >3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each >nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a >chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one >nomcom previously. > >4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be >disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being >chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified >from being chosen. > >5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed >by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > >6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will >their applications and other information > >7. The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving >a description of the internal processes used in the selection. > >8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >disbanded after the decision is made. > >9. There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on." > > >I suggest that discussion focus on a process for recommending names >for the MAG. Remembering the caucus cannot appoint or select, it can >only recommend. That the MAG rotation process may change. > >If members of the most recent nomcom are not members of this list >(hope it works...) suggest they are invited to join. > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >mmwg mailing list >mmwg at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 12 13:49:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:19:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080612174937.31FC9A6CA2@smtp2.electricembers.net> > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP > Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" > Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. But the program doc doesn't say so... To quote "workshops will be overseen by the MAG and supported/facilitated by the IGF Secretariat. Workshop sponsors whose workshop proposals fit within the topics recommended by the MAG are invited to contact the IGF Secretariat, if they wish to have their workshop considered as Main Session Workshops. However, they should not be prevented from holding their separate workshop if they prefer, depending on the availability of meeting rooms." Is it that you think since there are more proposals than slots, the axe will definitively fall on those workshops which are being included in main workshop design... How do you think mergers will take place into a main workshop design... could it not become unmanageable if they put too many workshop organizers together.... I understand that it is the 'stronger' (in terms of themes and partnerships) workshops that may be accommodated in the main session framework, but the same strong contenders may be more wary of their workshops 'disappearing' under some new very broad agendas. This may make these stronger workshops to not seek to come into main sessions partnerships... was just wondering. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:37 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words > >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned > >about the abandonment of the "U"-word. > > > >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change > >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? > > > is a good question. The paper is described as a rolling document > "and will be updated as appropriate." I do not know if we can modify > it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for > comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for > workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending > comments as soon as possible. Send direct to the secretariat, they > are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis > papers, etc. > > I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary > general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems > to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too > late for that. But changes will be made in September. The programme > has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the > programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't > any use as a programme at the moment. > > As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main > session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar > workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will > have a great impact on the programme. > > For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries: > The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" There will be a > session "Arrangement for Internet Governance". IGP could volunteer > to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops > that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new > "main session workshop". The volunteer workshop organizers and the > MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have > not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session > debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a > stage full of panelists.) > > There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more > attractive, but that's IGP's choice. > > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP > Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" > Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. Unfortunately, for some > sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit > as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30, > there is time to do some tailoring. > > BTW -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd! > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >--MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 12 13:55:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:25:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080612174937.31FC9A6CA2@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080612175552.1BDC8E2179@smtp3.electricembers.net> Sorry, forgot to mention. The email is addressed to Adam, whose email is quoted. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:19 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP > > Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" > > Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. > > > But the program doc doesn't say so... > > To quote "workshops will be overseen by the MAG and supported/facilitated > by > the IGF Secretariat. Workshop sponsors whose workshop proposals fit within > the topics recommended by the MAG are invited to contact the IGF > Secretariat, if they wish to have their workshop considered as Main > Session > Workshops. However, they should not be prevented from holding their > separate > workshop if they prefer, depending on the availability of meeting rooms." > > Is it that you think since there are more proposals than slots, the axe > will > definitively fall on those workshops which are being included in main > workshop design... How do you think mergers will take place into a main > workshop design... could it not become unmanageable if they put too many > workshop organizers together.... I understand that it is the 'stronger' > (in > terms of themes and partnerships) workshops that may be accommodated in > the > main session framework, but the same strong contenders may be more wary of > their workshops 'disappearing' under some new very broad agendas. This may > make these stronger workshops to not seek to come into main sessions > partnerships... was just wondering. > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:37 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words > > >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned > > >about the abandonment of the "U"-word. > > > > > >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change > > >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? > > > > > > is a good question. The paper is described as a rolling document > > "and will be updated as appropriate." I do not know if we can modify > > it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for > > comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for > > workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending > > comments as soon as possible. Send direct to the secretariat, they > > are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis > > papers, etc. > > > > I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary > > general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems > > to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too > > late for that. But changes will be made in September. The programme > > has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the > > programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't > > any use as a programme at the moment. > > > > As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main > > session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar > > workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will > > have a great impact on the programme. > > > > For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries: > > The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" There will be a > > session "Arrangement for Internet Governance". IGP could volunteer > > to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops > > that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new > > "main session workshop". The volunteer workshop organizers and the > > MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have > > not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session > > debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a > > stage full of panelists.) > > > > There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more > > attractive, but that's IGP's choice. > > > > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP > > Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" > > Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc. Unfortunately, for some > > sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit > > as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30, > > there is time to do some tailoring. > > > > BTW -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >--MM > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 12 15:42:26 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:42:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080612164908.1BECA678B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7293@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <20080612164908.1BECA678B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC955@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: I support the first half of what you propose, but not the second half. They are two very different issues of course. 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: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner' Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Hi All I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG on these omissions - about openness and freedoms/ rights. We could specifically propose that the main theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it better) And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are (1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? (2) Fostering security, privacy and openness Instead should be (1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? (2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the same security issues in (2) as well.. In the same letter we should congratulate the MAG for selecting "Internet for All' as the overall theme, especially with the mention that this term is adopted from or was in analogy with the UNESCO's 'Education for All' Further to it we should say that 'reaching the next billion' does not appear the right sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons that we have discussed) and that if the universalization term is somehow found unclear (which assertion we find somewhat strange, since this is used in so many contexts in policy circles, including global ones) we can use the term 'Ensuring (or Achieving) Universal Access' which should be no problem at all because almost all countries have universal access provisions in their telecom policies. In the same letter we can also mention that we find the new format of a greater relationship between stakeholder organized workshops and the main workshop space a very good innovation or development. If we so believe, we may also say that the wholly open main session debates format is a good development, though I am still not clear how this debate will take place, and some integrity to the whole process ensured. Parminder , -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Thanks for these clarifications Adam. > > I'm sorry for not raising any of these concerns earlier - I haven't > participated directly in the consultations owing to time constraints and > wrongly assumed that other people would be carrying the 'rights flag'. > I've resolved to engage more actively from now on. > > Is there any opportunity for us to get involved in shaping the main > workshops aside from the option of merging workshops? I do think it's > important that rights aren't only seen as a security issue. However, > there was an excellent workshop organized by unesco/osce on the > intersection of security and rights last year - is anyone who was involved > on this list? > > Is there any interest within this caucus of presenting the under- > representation of openness/rights issues within the main agenda to the > secretariat as a shared concern? Either of the caucus as a whole, or of a > group of us? Any ideas Vittorio? Obviously the bill of rights coalition > would probably be interested too. > > I realise that the caucus submitted comments on themes for the IGF in > February, and it was proposed that openness should be a cross-cutting > issue. It was also proposed that the IGF should focus on how to uphold > the Geneva principles, and these reaffirm a commitment to human rights. > So I don't think that going back and stressing a commitment to seeing > openness and/or rights more substantively on the agenda, or stated > explicitly as a cross-cutting theme, would be contradicting earlier > proposals. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: 12 June 2008 12:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Lisa, Vittorio, you're right to be concerned. I'm > looking through the workshop proposals trying to > find possible civil society proposed/oriented > workshops that might merge to work on the main > session workshops, and there's not much there on > what should be the security/openness section. So > comments below are not meant to defend the MAG, > blame anyone, or defend how we've arrived at this > situation. > > > >I have to agree with Vittorio. Lumping openness and privacy together > >with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and > >trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human > >rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet > >governance. > > > The way the IGF process works it needs someone to > introduce an issue, to argue for it so it gets > into the rolling documents (synthesis papers > etc), and the caucus hasn't done that for > "rights" (speaking for myself, no excuses, in the > MAG I simply hadn't considered it, I'd have > needed reminding.) Same answer really to > Vittorio's question about the Bill of Rights > coalition: I remember one statement read by > Carlos in February, but that was more a call to > join the coalition, not a contribution of themes > or suggestion for the agenda (and February was > the time for that.) Since then I can't remember > any contribution, nothing about the agenda or any > MAG document, no recommendation for a theme, not > even an independent workshop proposal. So > probably the concerns of the coalition won't be > part of the meeting unless the coalition pushes > them. > > > >I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the > >end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized > >theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security > >issue. > > > Yes, they have been subsumed. However the > programme's been emerging since February, the > themes outlined in the summary of the February > MAG meeting > > and the paper prepared for the May consultation > Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf> > are not so different from what's in the current > Hyderabad paper. And there's been no reaction > about this direction until now. I don't remember > any comments following the February MAG paper > saying hold on, this is the wrong direction we > want rights/openness/ etc back in there in this > particular way. > > The February summary also says "The final > programme will be defined in light of the > proposals made for holding workshops..." Looking > back at the draft schedules in both those papers > and then the workshops proposed by CS led > organizing groups there aren't many that are a > good fit with some of those proposed themes, > particularly on the security/privacy/openness > area. > > So now there's not much to work with to influence > the main session workshops under the Promoting > Cyber-Security and Trust heading. I don't see any > CS led workshops relating to "Are we losing the > battle against cyber-crime?", probably also > "Fostering security, privacy and openness", which > is a surprise as it was intended as a session > where the relationship (balance) between > security, privacy and openness would be explored. > Lisa, just seen your note replying to Linda where > you say "the human rights framework can help to > balance out many of the tensions we're facing in > the internet arena, for example between security > and openness", so there is room here to introduce > the rights framework you're talking about, but > not at the moment given the way the workshop > proposals are written. > > We've been saying we support the idea of thematic > workshops feeding into or linked to the main > sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose > workshops that do that. CS led proposals are > certainly interesting (Global Partners and > Associates on mainstreaming human rights, APC on > sexual rights and the Internet/content regulation > and the caucus on a rights agenda) but they are > not well suited for moving over into the main > sessions or to help define those sessions as they > were developing from the February meeting. > > Perhaps the caucus' rights agenda for Internet > governance could be re-worked so it could work > with the "Fostering security, privacy and > openness" workshop (though it would mean loosing > the right to hold it as an individual workshop.) > > > > >I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for > >rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel > >sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue. > > > Can write to the secretariat now expressing > concerns and make proposals for the final > programme. The programme will be discussed at the > September meeting, comments will be taken into > account (it's still a rolling document.) > > If we feel issues have been overlooked and the > MAG can't find a balance of views in the group > arranging a main session workshop then we can ask > to bring in expertise from outside. An the > obvious place to start looking for expertise > would be the coalitions. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >For > >example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both > >working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from > >the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and > >capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a > >key means of achieving this). > > > >Thanks, > >Lisa > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > >Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > >Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > >Adam Peake ha scritto: > >> I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five > >> simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked > >> for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty > >dull. > >> So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates. > > > >The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given > >the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop > >among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to > >main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues: > > > >>>> - Reaching the next billion > >>>> > >>>> ** Access > >>>> > >>>> ** Multilingualism. > >>>> > >>>> - Promoting cyber-security and trust > >>>> > >>>> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >>>> > >>>> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness > >>>> > >>>> - Managing critical Internet resources > >>>> > >>>> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6. > >>>> > >>>> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and > >national/regional. > >>>> > >>>> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward > >>>> > >>>> - Emerging issues. > > > >there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word > > > >"freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" > >(still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose > > > >other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is > >repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same > >group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice > >("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that > >the message from the MAG is clear! > > > >Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, > >but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have > > > >been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for > >the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have > >the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor > >level. > > > >Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last > >workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main > >themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some) > > > >in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by > >two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this > > > >proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, > >with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ > >countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among > >the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the > >instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the > >future of the Internet. > > > >So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it > >was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the > >overall agenda? > > > >Thanks, > >-- > >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 13 03:31:54 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:31:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080612174937.31FC9A6CA2@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080612174937.31FC9A6CA2@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I wondered if this might come up, couple of days ago on the MAG list asked Markus to clarify, his answer: At 12:40 PM +0200 6/12/08, Markus KUMMER wrote: >The originally proposed workshops will not >retain their identity, as they will be merged >into a main session workshop. So... > > If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will > > loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP >> Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?" >> Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc.  > > >But the program doc doesn't say so... > >To quote "workshops will be overseen by the MAG and supported/facilitated by >the IGF Secretariat. Workshop sponsors whose workshop proposals fit within >the topics recommended by the MAG are invited to contact the IGF >Secretariat, if they wish to have their workshop considered as Main Session >Workshops. However, they should not be prevented from holding their separate >workshop if they prefer, depending on the availability of meeting rooms." > I can see why you'd ask, but no, the answer is if workshops merge then they cannot also hold a separate workshop. It makes sense, the point of asking workshops to merge, whether for the main sessions or just as a matter of course for all proposals is to try and improve the quality and reduce the number. Strong comments following the past two IGFs that the programme needs to be less complex, workshops should not overlap so much etc. For main session workshops, organizers will benefit from being in the main room and larger audience, also helping prepare the related afternoon debate (how is not decided, but it will happen to some degree by default), from having full interpretation, webcast and remote access, transcription. Problem is people who have put a lot of effort into workshop proposals will need to take a risk that they will still be able to get their message across when they merge in the main session. It's the better prepared workshops that are the most likely to be the best candidates to join the main sessions so they would understandably be most wary. Hope this helps. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 13 04:16:05 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:16:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC955@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7293@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <20080612164908.1BECA678B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC955@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Milton about the second part. For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into the debate the follows in the afternoon. With this in mind, we volunteer the Internet Governance Caucus workshop proposal "A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance" as one of the candidates for merging in the second workshop session. (if we agree to do merging the caucus proposal?) And we could also add that we expect this balance between the themes of security and openness will be reflected in the programme description developed during the September consultation. We need to make practical proposals. Keep things simple. And we need civil society represented in developing this main session. Thanks, Adam >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CCC4.711FB7F8" > >Parminder: >I support the first half of what you propose, >but not the second half. They are two very >different issues of course. >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: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner' >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > >Hi All > >I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG >on these omissions ­ about openness and >freedoms/ rights. > > >We could specifically propose that the main >theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" >instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and >Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it >better) > >And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >(2) Fostering security, privacy and openness > >Instead should be > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >(2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we >somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) > >We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security >issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other >issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the >same security issues in (2) as well.. > > >In the same letter we should congratulate the >MAG for selecting ³Internet for All¹ as the >overall theme, especially with the mention that >this term is adopted from or was in analogy with >the UNESCO¹s ŒEducation for All¹ > >Further to it we should say that Œreaching the >next billion¹ does not appear the right >sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons >that we have discussed) and that if the >universalization term is somehow found unclear >(which assertion we find somewhat strange, since >this is used in so many contexts in policy >circles, including global ones) we can use the >term ŒEnsuring (or Achieving) Universal Access¹ >which should be no problem at all because almost >all countries have universal access provisions >in their telecom policies. > >In the same letter we can also mention that we >find the new format of a greater relationship >between stakeholder organized workshops and the >main workshop space a very good innovation or >development. If we so believe, we may also say >that the wholly open main session debates format >is a good development, though I am still not >clear how this debate will take place, and some >integrity to the whole process ensured. > >Parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 06:14:25 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:14:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > I just sent email about revising the caucus nomcom procedures to the old > "Multistakeholder Modalities WG". I don't remember the exact purpose of > the Mmwg, http://www.nomadicity.net/mmwg-charter-051213.html The purpose of the Working Group is : * To define multi-stakeholder participation in a way that is inclusive and accessible to all stakeholders. * To develop and formalize timely recommendations for modalities of multi-stakeholder participation that can be applied, among others, to activities in: * The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) * The Process for enhanced cooperation * WSIS Implementation and follow on activities * To promote such recommendations to relevant UN and other international organizations * To provide ongoing recommendations and advocacy once the original mechanisms are established but it seems a reasonable place to hold a discussion about the > nomcom. > I guess we COULD discuss it there, but since there is no formal relationship between MMWG and the IGC exists, I doubt this caucus would accept a recommendation from an outside entity, given that we don't seem to have taken on board the Nomcoms recommendation in this area. -- 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 Fri Jun 13 06:33:33 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:33:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: McTim, It's an under used mailing list, many interested already subscribe, it is open to anyone to join and the archives are open, broadly speaking it was created to discuss modalities for participation in IGF among other things. I can't see any reason why the caucus would not be interested in any recommendations that came from the MMWG. Of course adopting a new process would require a vote. So let's move forward, please take this discussion to the MMWG list. Thanks, Adam >Adam, > >On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just sent email about revising the caucus nomcom procedures to the old >> "Multistakeholder Modalities WG". I don't remember the exact purpose of >> the Mmwg, > > >http://www.nomadicity.net/mmwg-charter-051213.html > >The purpose of the Working Group is : > > * > > To define multi-stakeholder participation in a way that is >inclusive and accessible to all stakeholders. > * > > To develop and formalize timely recommendations for modalities >of multi-stakeholder participation that can be applied, among others, >to activities in: > * > > The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > * > > The Process for enhanced cooperation > * > > WSIS Implementation and follow on activities > * > > To promote such recommendations to relevant UN and other >international organizations > * > > To provide ongoing recommendations and advocacy once the >original mechanisms are established > > > > but it seems a reasonable place to hold a discussion about the >> nomcom. >> > >I guess we COULD discuss it there, but since there is no formal >relationship between MMWG and the IGC exists, I doubt this caucus >would accept a recommendation from an outside entity, given that we >don't seem to have taken on board the Nomcoms recommendation in this >area. > > >-- >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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Fri Jun 13 09:37:59 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:37:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C7293@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <20080612164908.1BECA678B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC955@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C72BA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me. However, there's some discussion amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main workshop or the 'access' one. So if the statement needs to go to the secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments regarding merging proposals. Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 13 June 2008 09:16 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme I agree with Milton about the second part. For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into the debate the follows in the afternoon. With this in mind, we volunteer the Internet Governance Caucus workshop proposal "A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance" as one of the candidates for merging in the second workshop session. (if we agree to do merging the caucus proposal?) And we could also add that we expect this balance between the themes of security and openness will be reflected in the programme description developed during the September consultation. We need to make practical proposals. Keep things simple. And we need civil society represented in developing this main session. Thanks, Adam >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CCC4.711FB7F8" > >Parminder: >I support the first half of what you propose, >but not the second half. They are two very >different issues of course. >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: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner' >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > >Hi All > >I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG >on these omissions ­ about openness and >freedoms/ rights. > > >We could specifically propose that the main >theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" >instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and >Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it >better) > >And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >(2) Fostering security, privacy and openness > >Instead should be > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > >(2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we >somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) > >We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security >issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other >issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the >same security issues in (2) as well.. > > >In the same letter we should congratulate the >MAG for selecting ³Internet for All¹ as the >overall theme, especially with the mention that >this term is adopted from or was in analogy with >the UNESCO¹s ŒEducation for All¹ > >Further to it we should say that Œreaching the >next billion¹ does not appear the right >sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons >that we have discussed) and that if the >universalization term is somehow found unclear >(which assertion we find somewhat strange, since >this is used in so many contexts in policy >circles, including global ones) we can use the >term ŒEnsuring (or Achieving) Universal Access¹ >which should be no problem at all because almost >all countries have universal access provisions >in their telecom policies. > >In the same letter we can also mention that we >find the new format of a greater relationship >between stakeholder organized workshops and the >main workshop space a very good innovation or >development. If we so believe, we may also say >that the wholly open main session debates format >is a good development, though I am still not >clear how this debate will take place, and some >integrity to the whole process ensured. > >Parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jun 13 10:18:07 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:18:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Adam, On 6/12/08 7:07 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > We've been saying we support the idea of thematic > workshops feeding into or linked to the main > sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose > workshops that do that. If there's a lack of thought, it needs contextualizing. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a close to the process and may be misremembering while traveling, but I believe that workshop proposals were due April 30, and that the MAG settled on the current formulation of linked main session workshops and debates on the designated themes in mid-May. In which case it's not surprising if many proposals are not substantively focused and operationally formulated in a manner that links easily to the main sessions. If the MAG could have settled on and announced a program model in February rather than focusing largely on its own constitution and operation, maybe people would have worked through these issues already... One approach, suggested in Rio, might have been to proceed bottom up and let the workshops people submitted drive the formulation of the main sessions. Identify thematic clusters in the submissions, select those on the themes that seemed most promising and directly related to IG per se, and then do mains on those themes that involved a representative from each of the selected workshops. I suppose this might have been viewed as risky and as leaving MAG with less to do. A reverse and presumably more palatable alternative suggested subsequently would have been for the MAG to early on designate themes top down (taking into account external suggestions) and invite workshop proposals relevant to them, again selecting the most promising and directly related to IG workshops and pulling in representatives from each. Where we are now is more akin to the latter except there wasn't early notification to incent people to formulate proposals accordingly, so now you're post hoc trying to fit things together and discovering mismatches. For example, there's to be ms ws and then a ms debate on IPV6 but there are only 3 ws proposals on that, so you'd have to fill out a ms debate with more than a person from each, if a feeding in approach were to be followed. In contrast, there's a ton of proposals that could be characterized as arrangements for Internet governance so there you'll have to find some basis for justifying treating just a few of these as thematic. And as you've noted, not a lot that are good fits between CS proposals and some of the themes, like security/privacy/openness. And then of course many others of us (including the caucus) submitted proposals that are not on the designated themes, not knowing that if we'd done something different it could have become a ms ws... Anyway, we are where we are, so what kind of thinking are you looking for that we've not done, exactly? How to manage the asymmetries in number, quality, and stakeholder origin of ws proposals across the themes, due in part to the non-notification of the model? Criteria for selecting when there are too many proposals? Ways to encourage mergers when people want to do their own branded things? If you could be specific about what's needed it'd be easier for people to address it. Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 13 10:24:14 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:54:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C72BA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20080613142423.964F6E0450@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me. However, there's some discussion > amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether > to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main > workshop or the 'access' one. So if the statement needs to go to the > secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments > regarding merging proposals. > > Thanks, > Lisa Hi All, Meanwhile we can still go forward with writing to the secretariat on our views on main session themes, without mentioning anything about merging our workshop(s)... We seem to agree about the openness part. So lets do it... However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much discussion on this issue on the list, a little earlier.. People were of two views on 'universalisation' - though I personally find little merit in the argument against - so why not propose 'Ensuring universal access to the Internet 'instead of 'reaching the next billion'. What is anyone's problem in this being the sub topic under 'internet for all' apart from multilingualism. I think we need to articulate some reasons, rather than just say, I don’t agree. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me. However, there's some discussion > amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether > to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main > workshop or the 'access' one. So if the statement needs to go to the > secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments > regarding merging proposals. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: 13 June 2008 09:16 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > I agree with Milton about the second part. > > For the first, I suggest we write to the > secretariat saying something along the lines > of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" > is in danger of being lost in the session > currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and > Trust". Based the February consultation, summary > document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting > we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would > be maintained in this session. We suggest the > second part of the session, currently "Fostering > security, privacy and openness" focus more on > "fostering privacy and openness" than on > security, which will be the prime subject of the > first part of the session. Of course security > will be an important element of the second > workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness > and preservation of fundamental rights will be an > important element of the first workshop. What we > are suggesting is a balance between these issues > across the two workshops, and therefore into the > debate the follows in the afternoon. > > With this in mind, we volunteer the Internet > Governance Caucus workshop proposal "A Rights > Agenda for Internet Governance" as one of the > candidates for merging in the second workshop > session. > > (if we agree to do merging the caucus proposal?) > > And we could also add that we expect this balance > between the themes of security and openness will > be reflected in the programme description > developed during the September consultation. > > We need to make practical proposals. Keep things > simple. And we need civil society represented in > developing this main session. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CCC4.711FB7F8" > > > >Parminder: > >I support the first half of what you propose, > >but not the second half. They are two very > >different issues of course. > >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: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner' > >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > > > >Hi All > > > >I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG > >on these omissions ­ about openness and > >freedoms/ rights. > > > > > >We could specifically propose that the main > >theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" > >instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and > >Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it > >better) > > > >And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are > > > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > > >(2) Fostering security, privacy and openness > > > >Instead should be > > > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > > >(2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we > >somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) > > > >We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security > >issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other > >issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the > >same security issues in (2) as well.. > > > > > >In the same letter we should congratulate the > >MAG for selecting ³Internet for All¹ as the > >overall theme, especially with the mention that > >this term is adopted from or was in analogy with > >the UNESCO¹s ŒEducation for All¹ > > > >Further to it we should say that Œreaching the > >next billion¹ does not appear the right > >sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons > >that we have discussed) and that if the > >universalization term is somehow found unclear > >(which assertion we find somewhat strange, since > >this is used in so many contexts in policy > >circles, including global ones) we can use the > >term ŒEnsuring (or Achieving) Universal Access¹ > >which should be no problem at all because almost > >all countries have universal access provisions > >in their telecom policies. > > > >In the same letter we can also mention that we > >find the new format of a greater relationship > >between stakeholder organized workshops and the > >main workshop space a very good innovation or > >development. If we so believe, we may also say > >that the wholly open main session debates format > >is a good development, though I am still not > >clear how this debate will take place, and some > >integrity to the whole process ensured. > > > >Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Fri Jun 13 10:43:11 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:43:11 +0600 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080613142423.964F6E0450@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C72BA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <20080613142423.964F6E0450@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080613144808.AC6CAE0400@smtp3.electricembers.net> Parminder and All, You have stated nicely; I think we need to articulate some reasons, rather than just say, I don’t agree. Yes, topics may shift, focus may also shift and they need to be followed up. There are two ways to reach a conclusion. Both of them, bottom-up or top-bottom may somewhere coincide, through reasonable compromise. Kind regards, Hakik At 08:24 PM 6/13/2008, Parminder wrote: > > Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me. However, there's some discussion > > amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether > > to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main > > workshop or the 'access' one. So if the statement needs to go to the > > secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments > > regarding merging proposals. > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > >Hi All, > >Meanwhile we can still go forward with writing to the secretariat on our >views on main session themes, without mentioning anything about merging our >workshop(s)... > >We seem to agree about the openness part. So lets do it... > >However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being dismissed so >easily, and offhand, even though there was much discussion on this issue on >the list, a little earlier.. > >People were of two views on 'universalisation' - though I personally find >little merit in the argument against - so why not propose 'Ensuring >universal access to the Internet 'instead of 'reaching the next billion'. >What is anyone's problem in this being the sub topic under 'internet for >all' apart from multilingualism. > >I think we need to articulate some reasons, rather than just say, I don’t >agree. > >Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:08 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me. However, there's some discussion > > amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether > > to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main > > workshop or the 'access' one. So if the statement needs to go to the > > secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments > > regarding merging proposals. > > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: 13 June 2008 09:16 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > I agree with Milton about the second part. > > > > For the first, I suggest we write to the > > secretariat saying something along the lines > > of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" > > is in danger of being lost in the session > > currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and > > Trust". Based the February consultation, summary > > document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting > > we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would > > be maintained in this session. We suggest the > > second part of the session, currently "Fostering > > security, privacy and openness" focus more on > > "fostering privacy and openness" than on > > security, which will be the prime subject of the > > first part of the session. Of course security > > will be an important element of the second > > workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness > > and preservation of fundamental rights will be an > > important element of the first workshop. What we > > are suggesting is a balance between these issues > > across the two workshops, and therefore into the > > debate the follows in the afternoon. > > > > With this in mind, we volunteer the Internet > > Governance Caucus workshop proposal "A Rights > > Agenda for Internet Governance" as one of the > > candidates for merging in the second workshop > > session. > > > > (if we agree to do merging the caucus proposal?) > > > > And we could also add that we expect this balance > > between the themes of security and openness will > > be reflected in the programme description > > developed during the September consultation. > > > > We need to make practical proposals. Keep things > > simple. And we need civil society represented in > > developing this main session. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CCC4.711FB7F8" > > > > > >Parminder: > > >I support the first half of what you propose, > > >but not the second half. They are two very > > >different issues of course. > > >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: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM > > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner' > > >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi All > > > > > >I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG > > >on these omissions ­ about openness and > > >freedoms/ rights. > > > > > > > > >We could specifically propose that the main > > >theme "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust" > > >instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and > > >Trust, while ensuring openness" (we can word it > > >better) > > > > > >And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are > > > > > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > > > > >(2) Fostering security, privacy and openness > > > > > >Instead should be > > > > > >(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? > > > > > >(2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we > > >somehow add FoE, or would it be un-strategic) > > > > > >We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security > > >issues, so sub-topic (2) can discuss other > > >issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the > > >same security issues in (2) as well.. > > > > > > > > >In the same letter we should congratulate the > > >MAG for selecting ³Internet for All¹ as the > > >overall theme, especially with the mention that > > >this term is adopted from or was in analogy with > > >the UNESCO¹s ŒEducation for All¹ > > > > > >Further to it we should say that Œreaching the > > >next billion¹ does not appear the right > > >sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons > > >that we have discussed) and that if the > > >universalization term is somehow found unclear > > >(which assertion we find somewhat strange, since > > >this is used in so many contexts in policy > > >circles, including global ones) we can use the > > >term ŒEnsuring (or Achieving) Universal Access¹ > > >which should be no problem at all because almost > > >all countries have universal access provisions > > >in their telecom policies. > > > > > >In the same letter we can also mention that we > > >find the new format of a greater relationship > > >between stakeholder organized workshops and the > > >main workshop space a very good innovation or > > >development. If we so believe, we may also say > > >that the wholly open main session debates format > > >is a good development, though I am still not > > >clear how this debate will take place, and some > > >integrity to the whole process ensured. > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 13 11:07:30 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080613142423.964F6E0450@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C72BA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <20080613142423.964F6E0450@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC966@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being > dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much > discussion on this issue on > the list, a little earlier.. Sorry if my comment seemed so short, it was due to time limitations. I was not even able to participate in the dicsussion on "universalization" for the same reason. We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate time frame, such a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. My understanding was that that you were asking for quick advice on a statement to the Secretariat. For that purpose, it seemed sufficient to simply express support or opposition to the two parts of the statement. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Jun 13 11:14:12 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:14:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Deadline for ITU Consultation on participation of stakeholders: 15 June 2008 Message-ID: <000501c8cd68$2f1cf960$d22a120a@acer19b694409a> Dear colleagues, This is to remind you that the deadline for answering the short questionnaire of the ITU Open Consultation on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union is 15 June 2008 (this sunday). The content of your answers will be made available to the members of the ITU WG working on this issue as well as summarized in a concept note by the Secretariat. As previously mentioned, it is more appropriate that your answers are sent in English to have more impact on the members of the WG. Let me remid that all CS entitites accredited to WSIS are entitled to answer this questionnaire. You will find below the first draft of the answers CONGO plans to send to the ITU. Please send me any feedback and comment in this regard. But your respective individual organisations are of course encouraged to send their answers to the ITU. Some quick links: * On Line questionnaire (deadline 15 June 2008) * Webpage on the ITU Council Working Group on the Study on the Participation of all relevant stakeholders in ITU Activities related to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) * WG-Study/2/08*: Secretariat Background Paper on existing practices within ITU for the participation of relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union * WG-Study/4/02, Rev.2*: Secretariat Background Paper on the analysis of existing mechanisms and practices for stakeholder participation in the United Nations, other specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations Best, Philippe ============================================ OPEN CONSULTATIONS ON THE INCLUSION OF RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF ITU RELATED TO WSIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO WSIS-ACCREDITED ENTITIES [PRELIMINARY DRAFT ANSWER BY CONGO SECRETARIAT] a) What "added value" might stakeholders (that are not members of the ITU) bring to the work of ITU in its WSIS-related activities? Stakeholders not in membership with the ITU can first of all bring additional outreach to the activities of the ITU. Civil society entities, as they have become one of the most publicly trusted groups, can in that sense increase the visibility of the ITU, in particular in its activities related to WSIS, within additional groups of actors. In addition, civil society groups can convey messages which are not fully reflected by the organisations currently seeking ITU membership. Through its connections with the grassroots and with those working in the field, as well as with a large constituencies of researchers and experts, civil society can raise issues of concern for groups directly concerned by decisions taken by the ITU. Civil society groups also approach issues addressed by the ITU taking into consideration the broader social and human-centred impact of these policies. ITU would gain valuable inputs from new categories of people fully involved in the development of the Information society. Finally, civil society entities, because of the flexibility of their structures and their direct and cross-cutting involvement in the fast-evolving nature of the information society, can bring to international organisations valuable inputs on emerging issues and with a transversal perspective. The experience of the WSIS summit demonstrated that, even in the core issues pertaining to the ITU mandate, the Summit would not have been such a success if limited to the participation of the traditional actors in membership with the ITU. The ITU has continued to express and show its willingness to continue the involvement of the WSIS actors in its activities during and after WSIS. The development or a real and long-standing partnership with this category of stakeholders, in addition to the current ad hoc interactions between the ITU and some CS entities, would also contribute to increasing the mutual trust and commitment between the ITU and a large number of stakeholders. b) What criteria could be suggested for defining which stakeholders (that are not members of the ITU) might be "relevant" to participate in ITU activities related to WSIS, taking into account a) above? The criteria to be retained in the definition of which stakeholders might be relevant to participate in the ITU activities should be focused on the mandate, activities, expertise and knowledge of the stakeholder, which cover substantial fields of ITU activities and functions. Therefore, ITU should look at both the policy level and at the project implementation level. Therefore, specialised NGOs and CSOs with an interest and concerns in telecommunications issues, development NGOs, consumer unions, research and academic institutions, as well as organisations defending public interests have a large relevance in participating in the activities of the ITU. An element of relevance is for the stakeholders to have expertise and activities in several countries - either at the international, regional or sub-regional level, who might have higher relevance in line with the international nature of the ITU activities. Nevertheless, the involvement of national stakeholders with expertise on global policy issues and with implementation activities in other should also be considered as a relevant stakeholder. Those entities accredited to WSIS are relevant actors to participate in WSIS related activities, in line with the mandate of the ITU and functions of the Union's sectors. Other stakeholders not accredited to WSIS must also be considered as relevant when their mandate, activities, expertise and knowledge come within the field of activities of the ITU. c) What are the challenges (including financial) to stakeholders (that are not members of the ITU) posed by their participation in the activities of the Union related to WSIS, and how can such challenges be met? Current challenges to stakeholders' participation in the activities of the ITU are based on the fact that a large number of civil society actors which have demonstrated expertise in telecommunication activities have currently not the possibility of becoming Sector or Associate member of the ITU because they are specialised in a too limited range of issues. At the same time, the specific - and, in a way, very open - nature of the Sector and Associate Membership modalities developed within ITU might not be fully adapted to the reality of the civil society involvement in international organisations. Indeed civil society stakeholders do not have the capacity to afford the financial weight of the Sector or Associate membership with the ITU. Beyond this financial challenge, a large number of relevant stakeholders are not tempted to engage through a paid-up membership status with the ITU, because they have access via consultative or observer status to other intergovernmental organisations. Modalities for their participation beyond the current membership status should be further considered, both in terms of institutional relations with ITU decision making structures and in terms of consultation with the ITU Secretariat. A number of stakeholders have developed ad hoc relationships with the ITU secretariat and with some ITU processes. But this does not give way to a general partnership framework for relevant stakeholders. The ITU Secretariat Background Paper on existing practices within ITU for the participation of relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union highlighted the very complex modalities for participation of non ITU member stakeholders, while modalities for consultative or observers' status are quite simple in other international organisations. The visibility of participation opportunities for relevant stakeholders is creating challenges hampering the accessibility of the ITU. We therefore recommend that harmonization be considered with the view to make modalities of participation of relevant stakeholders more coherent within the inter-sectoral activities and in the meetings and activities of the Sectors. The creation of a Civil Society Information and Outreach Unit would also be an important step forward to facilitate stakeholders' participation in the ITU - in particular civil society entities. The password protected nature of ITU documentation is also an important challenge which hampers the fullest involvement of non ITU members. We recommend that all document released by the ITU and all decision taken by the organisation be made publicly available. d) How can existing mechanisms (e.g. partnerships, symposia, seminars, workshops, focus groups, policy forums, experts) for participation by stakeholders (that are not members of ITU) be used more effectively, and what other mechanisms could be suggested? The harmonisation and simplification of the very complex architecture of the ITU as well as the creation of a Civil Society Unit should be considered in priority, as mentioned under question c). Other proposed mechanisms would be two-fold at this stage: - Setting up of a roster of relevant stakeholders / civil society entities which should receive notifications of ITU processes, as well as could send written documentation to be circulated to ITU members and be invited as observers with some speaking rights to intergovernmental policy processes on their area of expertise. The modalities for the inclusion in this roster would be addressed at a later stage. - Arrangements for informal interaction towards information exchange and consultation with the ITU Secretariat Sectors. In a general manner, we would recommend that all ITU activities related to WSIS be run on the basis of the WSIS principles of multi-stakeholder participation in which the needs and contributions of all concerned relevant stakeholders would be reflected in the proceedings. e) What specific efforts may be needed to mobilize and ensure the meaningful and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders (that are not members of the ITU) from developing countries, and stakeholders in the development field? The participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries is a crucial challenge for all international organisations, but also a priority for the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations. Specific outreach should be performed by the ITU Secretariat and by the whole NGO community to ensure that relevant stakeholders from developing countries are fully aware of their opportunities. The proposed Civil Society Unit could play a very important role in this context. At the same time, the development and systematisation of remote participation modalities for ITU meetings - as used at our great interest during the 2008 WSIS implementation meetings and GAID open consultation - would facilitate attracting the interest and inputs from relevant stakeholders not present in Geneva. Lastly, stakeholders from developing countries and from the development field should be allowed and encouraged to provide written inputs on the agenda items of the ITU processes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO - Philippe Dam" Subject: [governance] Summary of session on participation of relevant stakeholders in the ITU activities... Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:41 +0200 Size: 137661 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 13 11:25:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:55:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC966@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080613152524.E61A2E0420@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate time frame, such > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. If you read my proposal you will see that I am not asking that we communicate that the suggested topic be universalisation (and there is no mention of rights anywhere either). I am agreeing that there is some difference of views on 'universalization of the internet' term. So I proposed 'ensuring universal access to the Internet' instead of 'reaching the next billion' about which a lot of discussion did take place. I saw no one specifically insisting that 'reaching the next billion' should be retained (I may be corrected on this). We agree that 'internet for all' is a good overall theme (hopefully). And under it the relevant theme from a policy point of view, and not a business strategy point of view, is 'ensuring universal access to the Internet' since, as I argued, nearly all countries, including the US I think, have some form of universal access policies... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being > > dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much > > discussion on this issue on > > the list, a little earlier.. > > Sorry if my comment seemed so short, it was due to time limitations. I > was not even able to participate in the dicsussion on "universalization" > for the same reason. > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate time frame, such > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. My understanding was that that > you were asking for quick advice on a statement to the Secretariat. For > that purpose, it seemed sufficient to simply express support or > opposition to the two parts of the statement. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 13 12:04:40 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:04:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080613152524.E61A2E0420@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC966@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080613152524.E61A2E0420@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC96B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: I wrote my dissertation on universal service policy as it evolved in the US, and have been engaged in U.S. policy debates around that topic since 1990. So I am fully aware of the implications of various phrasings, which is why I don't want to go down the road of calling for "ensuring universal access to the Internet." Such a call could be construed, and almost certainly would be construed by some, as a call for the kind of classical subsidy schemes that rationalized telephone monopolies and in many instances actually hindered the expansion of new networks and services by creating a social compact to restrict service delivery to a privileged monopoly subject to universal service obligations. I am unwilling to support anything that would even hint at perpetuating or reproducing that old model. Of course, who is against having universal access to the Internet? the issue is how you get there. Fact is, access is growing very fast, almost everywhere where there is peace and a relatively open market. If you want to accelerate that process, you'd better have some solid ideas how, and also make sure that your proposals don't disrupt or retard the growth already taking place. Incidentally, the MOST important variable affecting telecom access is GDP, so the best way to promote (more-)universal access is to foster economic growth and greater wealth. So why not just call for "ensuring universal access to wealth"? Another problem is, it's not clear what institutional mechanisms are available to finance the "ensuring" of universal access at the global level, nor is it clear what levels of access we are talking about, nor is it clear what other budget items get lost to finance that. Absent those institutional specifics, I feel that it is irresponsible to call for a goal of that sort. We've had this discussion before: you call things "rights" that I call "policies," and by calling them "rights" imho you seem to (verbally) exempt yourself from the discipline of putting them into the context of competing social priorities, and basically assume away the budget constraint that inherently and inescapably limits what govt policies can do. So now we are in the ideological argument...and the statement to the Secretariat...? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:25 AM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > Milton > > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate > time frame, such > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. > > If you read my proposal you will see that I am not asking that we > communicate that the suggested topic be universalisation (and > there is no > mention of rights anywhere either). > > I am agreeing that there is some difference of views on > 'universalization of > the internet' term. So I proposed 'ensuring universal access to the > Internet' instead of 'reaching the next billion' about which a lot of > discussion did take place. I saw no one specifically insisting that > 'reaching the next billion' should be retained (I may be > corrected on this). > We agree that 'internet for all' is a good overall theme > (hopefully). And > under it the relevant theme from a policy point of view, and > not a business > strategy point of view, is 'ensuring universal access to the Internet' > since, as I argued, nearly all countries, including the US I > think, have > some form of universal access policies... > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:38 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] > programme > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being > > > dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much > > > discussion on this issue on > > > the list, a little earlier.. > > > > Sorry if my comment seemed so short, it was due to time > limitations. I > > was not even able to participate in the dicsussion on > "universalization" > > for the same reason. > > > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate > time frame, such > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. My understanding was > that that > > you were asking for quick advice on a statement to the > Secretariat. For > > that purpose, it seemed sufficient to simply express support or > > opposition to the two parts of the statement. > > > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 13 12:59:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:29:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC96B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080613165934.E5CE6A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton > So now we are in the ideological argument...and the statement to the > Secretariat...? Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you that universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not required for universal access. So why the will of such a small minority should keep prevailing in and informing our group's positions? > Of course, who is against having universal access to the Internet? the > issue is how you get there. Fact is, access is growing very fast, almost > everywhere where there is peace and a relatively open market. Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons for it. Although even universal access to telephony has almost always needed support of USOs or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in the world. India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open market. As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even with such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more than 1 percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And fibre runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not translated to access to Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the presentation I made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development last month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for universal Internet access in India. It has been clearly established that even supply side policies (what to say markets alone) are not sufficient for spread of broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. So I think we need to go beyond what you describe as US's experience, though I have a strong feeling that it does not completely hold even for the US... > Another problem is, it's not clear what institutional mechanisms are > available to finance the "ensuring" of universal access at the global > level, It is not only about availability of 'international finance' but as much about dominant ideological models, like the one you profess, that get peddled to developing countries in various ways that we need to resist, and I am trying to resist. That's what is 'global' about telecom access policies, apart from international institutional mechanisms of funding. Let us examine the real situation of developing countries, their contexts and needs, when we speak about policies on access etc in IG arenas, or otherwise. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:35 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Parminder: > I wrote my dissertation on universal service policy as it evolved in the > US, and have been engaged in U.S. policy debates around that topic since > 1990. So I am fully aware of the implications of various phrasings, > which is why I don't want to go down the road of calling for "ensuring > universal access to the Internet." Such a call could be construed, and > almost certainly would be construed by some, as a call for the kind of > classical subsidy schemes that rationalized telephone monopolies and in > many instances actually hindered the expansion of new networks and > services by creating a social compact to restrict service delivery to a > privileged monopoly subject to universal service obligations. I am > unwilling to support anything that would even hint at perpetuating or > reproducing that old model. > > Of course, who is against having universal access to the Internet? the > issue is how you get there. Fact is, access is growing very fast, almost > everywhere where there is peace and a relatively open market. If you > want to accelerate that process, you'd better have some solid ideas how, > and also make sure that your proposals don't disrupt or retard the > growth already taking place. Incidentally, the MOST important variable > affecting telecom access is GDP, so the best way to promote > (more-)universal access is to foster economic growth and greater wealth. > So why not just call for "ensuring universal access to wealth"? > > Another problem is, it's not clear what institutional mechanisms are > available to finance the "ensuring" of universal access at the global > level, nor is it clear what levels of access we are talking about, nor > is it clear what other budget items get lost to finance that. Absent > those institutional specifics, I feel that it is irresponsible to call > for a goal of that sort. We've had this discussion before: you call > things "rights" that I call "policies," and by calling them "rights" > imho you seem to (verbally) exempt yourself from the discipline of > putting them into the context of competing social priorities, and > basically assume away the budget constraint that inherently and > inescapably limits what govt policies can do. > > So now we are in the ideological argument...and the statement to the > Secretariat...? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:25 AM > > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > > > > Milton > > > > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate > > time frame, such > > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. > > > > If you read my proposal you will see that I am not asking that we > > communicate that the suggested topic be universalisation (and > > there is no > > mention of rights anywhere either). > > > > I am agreeing that there is some difference of views on > > 'universalization of > > the internet' term. So I proposed 'ensuring universal access to the > > Internet' instead of 'reaching the next billion' about which a lot of > > discussion did take place. I saw no one specifically insisting that > > 'reaching the next billion' should be retained (I may be > > corrected on this). > > We agree that 'internet for all' is a good overall theme > > (hopefully). And > > under it the relevant theme from a policy point of view, and > > not a business > > strategy point of view, is 'ensuring universal access to the Internet' > > since, as I argued, nearly all countries, including the US I > > think, have > > some form of universal access policies... > > > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:38 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] > > programme > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > > > However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being > > > > dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much > > > > discussion on this issue on > > > > the list, a little earlier.. > > > > > > Sorry if my comment seemed so short, it was due to time > > limitations. I > > > was not even able to participate in the dicsussion on > > "universalization" > > > for the same reason. > > > > > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and > > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate > > time frame, such > > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. My understanding was > > that that > > > you were asking for quick advice on a statement to the > > Secretariat. For > > > that purpose, it seemed sufficient to simply express support or > > > opposition to the two parts of the statement. > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > > ------------------------------ > > > Internet Governance Project: > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Dev Oriented Policies - CSTD May 08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 113865 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 13 15:41:13 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:41:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] the public interest in ICANN Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC977@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> At the Paris meeting of ICANN June 23 - 28 some reforms may be made which could greatly improve ICANN's representative structure. In a nutshell, representation of noncommercial users (public interest groups, NGOs, and individuals of a public interest bent) will be increased from its current 14%, possibly to 25% or one-third. This will also involve a change in the nature of noncommercial interest representation in ICANN. We'd like to invite all civil society organizations with an interest in the Internet and its global governance to be aware of this and take advantage of it. So we are using online collaboration tools to extend the meeting between the ICANN Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) globally. You do not have to go to Paris to participate. NCUC will be using the Elluminate platform to permit remote participation in the meeting. Attendees will be able to pose questions or participate in the discussion. They will be able to hear discussions going on in the meeting. The civil society meeting will be held Tuesday June 24, from 14:00 - 18:00 Paris time. The first two hours will be a general policy issue discussion for noncommercial organizations, the second half (from 14:00 - 18:00) will coincide with the joint meeting between the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). Here are some sample world times: UTC/Paris 14:00-18:00 Delhi 19:30-23:30 Moscow 18:00-22:00 Sao Paulo 11:00-15:00 New York 10:00-14:00 Los Angeles 07:00-11:00 Hong Kong 22:00-02:00 To enable your participation, first install the Elluminate java-based Client. You can do this at any time, the sooner the better. To setup a client, use this link Once that is complete, on the date and time of the meeting go to the event listing on the IGP website and click "Join Meeting Online" An alternative link to join the meeting can be found here: Please relay this information to appropriate parties. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 13 18:08:44 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:08:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080613165934.E5CE6A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC96B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080613165934.E5CE6A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC97D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from filing an advocacy statement in this instance. > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you [snip] > So why the will of such a small minority should keep > prevailing in and informing our group's positions? Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to abandon the U-word. >[ MM asserts] that > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not required for universal > access. That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons > for it. Although > even universal access to telephony has almost always needed > support of USOs > or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in the world. Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps for a few very dense inner cities. But that of course depends on how you define it. > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open > market. As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even with > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more than 1 > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And fibre > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not translated > to access to > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the > presentation I > made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for > Development last > month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for universal > Internet access in India. It has been clearly established > that even supply > side policies (what to say markets alone) are not sufficient > for spread of > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal access policy. To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most Indian villages implies that it would be easy and cheap to connect them all (tens of thousands, right? or is it hundreds of thousands of villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those villages generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to sustain through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India have the money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it is not used and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've just pissed away someone's health care or education funds. Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can reach all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. Indeed, I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian telecom development under your administration, I guess if we are going to waste $100 billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good intentions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 13 22:05:56 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:05:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom In-Reply-To: <01bc01c8cd9a$79211cd0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <85354DB2-8422-43E0-902D-52EFDD225A97@psg.com> <01bc01c8cd9a$79211cd0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > To me the issue is more that the employee of a major internet governance > body might have a conflict of interest representing civil society when > discussing internet governance matters. (things would have been much neater > if we discussed this as the prime issue and the Nomcom report was worded a > little differently) - to move on maybe we should adopt McTims wording that > suggests there should not be blanket bans on classes. I am happy with that. The reason that I don't feel it's useful to have this discussion solely on the mmwg list is the above. If you had voiced this on the governance list, there would be now (by my count) 10 yeas to activate a charter change vote. Leaving aside the issue of potential conflicts of interest for ALL staff of orgs which take positions in the IG field, perhaps the charter amendment should have been "no other exclusions of members will be approved by the caucus, since all members equally have the right to be nominated by the IGC." In the interests of full disclosure, I have very recently changed status from "gifted amateur" to "Internet Governance Professional" having been paid to do some word-smithing by an IGI (but not an IGI whose staff, it seems, were included in the exclusion we are discussing). -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 13 23:21:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:51:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC97D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080614032203.15C3CE0431@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton > Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared > consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. It was nothing to do with an IGC process or anything... but this was really the first time I had heard anyone at all speak clearly against universal service obligations as a policy position, and so said this to make a point about how hopelessly a position against USOs is in a minority in the civil society space that we discuss this issue. >Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. They spoke about 'abandoning' the 'universalization' term, and not universal access. I have made the distinction in my last email. There is no point repeating the same thing. And I am very sure that both Ken and Adam strongly support universal access obligations/ funds. > >[ MM asserts] that > > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not > required for universal > > access. > > That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal > access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and > enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that > it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > Calling for markets to be left alone in the area of Internet access, without any public interventions, without understanding the complexities and diversities of the situations in developing countries is no less rhetorical. It is just hegemony of ideology that one position is made to sound like normal and natural, and the other unnatural, and abnormal, and therefore requiring special justifications. We wont give up progressive efforts in the South to mitigate risks on 'policy confusion' in the North. Speaking about institutional frameworks to enforce, what framework do we have globally to enforce FoE, it is almost entirely subject to national jurisdictions, so why waste out time???? > I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental > growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. > But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates > perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal > access policy. You can sit in the US and say whatever. India is rolling out its Common Services Centres (1,00,000 of them) to reach connectively along with its paraphernalia to rural India. And most developing countries are developing some such programs. I think you can just not see the Internet as an important social and development infrastructure, especially for developing countries, which therefore often require special 'public' support. I know the issue is not about just Internet. You don't see 'development' as anything else than a process where people and communities are freed from the state's oppression, and then things just take off. Overwhelmingly, development in developing countries, as was in developed countries when they were developing, is seen as a process that require significant 'public' planning and support. This difference of view is the real issue here, and we are fighting a proxy battle on 'universal access to the internet' issue. I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian > telecom development I am willing to receive it :-). Thanks, while we work out the modalities. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. > > :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from > filing an advocacy statement in this instance. > > > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I > > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you > [snip] > > So why the will of such a small minority should keep > > prevailing in and informing our group's positions? > > Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared > consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. > > >[ MM asserts] that > > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not > required for universal > > access. > > That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal > access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and > enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that > it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > > > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as > > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons > > for it. Although > > even universal access to telephony has almost always needed > > support of USOs > > or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in the world. > > Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps > for a few very dense inner cities. > But that of course depends on how you define it. > > > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open > > market. As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even > with > > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more > than 1 > > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And > fibre > > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not > translated > > to access to > > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the > > presentation I > > made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for > > Development last > > month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for universal > > Internet access in India. It has been clearly established > > that even supply > > side policies (what to say markets alone) are not sufficient > > for spread of > > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. > > But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates > perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal > access policy. To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most > Indian villages implies that it would be easy and cheap to connect them > all (tens of thousands, right? or is it hundreds of thousands of > villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing > access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the > so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous > amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those > villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those > villages generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to > sustain through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India > have the money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it > is not used and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've > just pissed away someone's health care or education funds. > > Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that > counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can > reach all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. > > I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental > growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of > universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. > Indeed, I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian > telecom development under your administration, I guess if we are going > to waste $100 billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good > intentions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rusdiah at rad.net.id Sat Jun 14 01:03:38 2008 From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (Rudi Rusdiah) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:03:38 +0700 Subject: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to In-Reply-To: <029f01c8c910$c1f49330$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <029f01c8c910$c1f49330$0301a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <4853512A.7030007@rad.net.id> dear all: Unfortunately we also could not attend this global telecenter alliances activity in Budapest hope it will be successfull FYI: What we did in Indonesia We are having our bottom up innitiative of public internet center (PIC) ... majority are privately owned by SME that we gathered under our association of community internet center in Indonesia ( APWKomitel) recently we signed an MOU collaboration between APWKomitel Indonesia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for collaboration on finding the right business model for public intenret center both private sector ( warnet, internet cafe, hotspot center) and government/donor innitiative center (telecenter, community internet center). regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel ( member in mailing list 3,200 and member of pic 600 in indonesia).. http://www.apwkomitel.org Michael Gurstein wrote: > Willie, > > I'd be interested in working on this on behalf of the Global Telecentre > Alliance which willed itself into formal existance at a conference in > Budapest a couple of weeks ago. > > I'm behind in my follow-up responsibilities in that context (I've been > travelling since the conference) but I'd look to act as a conduit between > this grouping and the GTA at least in the interim. > > Best to all, > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: June 6, 2008 3:08 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org > Cc: George Sadowsky; Suresh Ramasubramanian; 'Adam Peake' > Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to > > wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > >> Hi George, Suresh, Parminder, Adam and others >> >> What APC has in mind is the presentation of a kind of manifesto of >> this emerging multi-stakeholder consensus around access to the internet at >> > the IGF in Hyderabad. We discussed this with ISOC and BASIS at the May open > consultations on the IGF meetinog in Hyderabad. And we recognised that a > number of governments should be brought in. I was in Nairobi a few weeks ago > and heard an incredible talk by Dr Bitanga Ndemo, permanent secretary to the > Coms ministry on the very exciting developments around broadband access > that the Kenyan government is spearheading with other countries in East > Africa like Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.. The initiative is impressive > because it has taken on board the history of failure in this area in the > past and is mindful of the chain of connectivity from submarine cables > through to the last mile as well as looking at the regional as well as > national and local dimensions of broadband access.. Kenya was one of the > first African countries to liberalise > VoIP, for example.. And if this East African initiative succeeds it could > have a knock on effect through Africa. > >> I imagine the Indian, Egyptian, Japanese, Brazilian and Swiss >> governments may also be willing to participate as core partners to judge >> > from their previous and future participation in the IGF and WSIS processes. > The idea is not to make the process unwieldy by bringing on too many > partners prior to the announcement, but to try and ensure that a small > number of each stakeholder group is involved. > >> I think there would be space to address the national levels of >> implementation and monitoring like a national scorecard as George suggests >> > by using the announcment at the IGF to put this in motion for reportback at > the Cairo IGF. As well as the suggestions Suresh, Karl and others have made. > The idea is not so much to have a workshop as a multi-stakeholder > presentation of the manifesto in a kind of special event at the IGF.. > Obviously this manifesto would not be anything the IGF should have to > formally endorse. But stakeholders could be asked to add their names to it. > >> If the IGC were keen to join this initiative that would be great. >> Perhaps a small working group of interested participants from the IGC >> could work on this offlist and reportback to the main list - to make >> it more manageable. I would like to suggest that Karen Banks >> facilitates this process. >> >> Willie >> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky >> >> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:35 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Suresh >> Ramasubramanian" ,"'Adam Peake'" >> Subject: RE: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet to >> >> >> I agree that these are local or national issues and demand local >> knowledge. That implies that they demand local effort to change. >> >> So would it not make sense to concentrate upon collecting and/or >> disseminating information about strategies, i.e. case studies, that >> have worked in places an might be of use to others. I don't mean >> grand strategies, I mean vignettes that illustrate particular >> successes. If there were a workshop dedicated to this, I could see 10 >> presentations of 5 minutes each, followed by discussion. >> >> We have rough consensus (oops! that's an IETF criterion!) on what >> policies lead to the desired outcome. Now let's talk about >> implementation strategies an tactics. Are there ways to organize, or >> use existing organizations, at the national level to move closer to >> these goals? >> >> George >> >> >> At 10:07 PM +0530 6/5/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> A lot of the competition policy issues (regulator favoring the >>> incumbent telco, local telcos colluding to fix prices on one side, >>> and not trusting each other to peer on the other etc) do get >>> addressed at a local level by >>> >>> 1. Talking to the telcos and ISPs concerned, engaging with them on >>> discussions >>> >>> 2. In some cases, suing in a consumer court, approaching the telecom >>> / consumer ombudsman, right to information act filings etc get widely >>> (and with varying degrees of effectiveness) used by local groups. Oh >>> yes, and media attention to these issues. >>> >>> Some other issues are mitigated by capacity building, distribution of >>> free / cheap software on CDs (the Australian government was handing >>> out CDs with ubuntu linux and some other software back in 2005 - I >>> remember picking one up when I was at APRICOT in Perth, just for >>> example..) >>> >>> But you will agree I hope, that most of these are entirely local >>> issues and require local knowledge, local coordination. Global >>> coordination in these areas would be much more valuable in sharing >>> experiences, and developing a set of shared best practices (nothing >>> on the grand scale John Perry Barlow's declaration of independence of >>> cyberspace) >>> >>> Suresh >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:53 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] How can civil society help the Internet >>>> to >>>> >>>> Yes, the APC paper addresses many of these >>>> issues, and it is potentially a very useful >>>> document. >>>> >>>> I want to go a step further. Granted that there >>>> is an evolving consensus regarding issues >>>> surrounding access, what is the next step? Is >>>> this something to start a national scorecard on? >>>> Is it something to be followed up at the national >>>> level in all countries? I fear that continuing >>>> to stress it at the IGF will result in, for the >>>> most part, the converted preaching to the >>>> converted. >>>> >>>> This is an area, where in general you have an >>>> alignment of civil society, the Internet >>>> community, and most of the business community. >>>> On the other side, generally, you have >>>> governments and businesses (often telcos) that >>>> have monopoly or controlling positions. >>>> >>>> At some point, words don't go further in an >>>> alignment like that. What can be done further? >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>> ____________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 15 01:06:33 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:06:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC97D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c8cea5$98faad30$243c320a@michael78xnoln> Milton, To reinforce and support Parminder's point, in a very large part of the developing world Universal Service policies are in place (and Universal Service funds are being collected) as a basis for (wait for it) the realization of "universal service" i.e. universal service now being reintepreted from universal telephone service to universal internet access... (I happen at the moment to be in the airport of one of those jurisdictions that is in the process of spending a very very considerable amount of money in support of this mission having collected these funds under a program explicity designated Universal Services for Under Serviced areas... (I should also add that after meeting with senior official involved intensively over the last few days, I have no doubt whatsoever that their ultimate goal is "universal service/universal access" and that they are prepared to back this broader mission with an appropriate enabling institutional structure and in full recognition of the technical requirements for the achievement of this (in part that is what we have been discussing). BTW, I also think the folks I have been meeting with would consider your position either derisory (that you have no idea of the reality of their particular local telecom/Internet circumstances) or personally and nationally insulting (that they and their national government don't know what they doing). Thus, I see nothing either in logic or in practice which would not allow us to turn the syllogism around and indicate that universal access is something which many countries are looking to achieve by means of the modality of (wait for it again) policies and practices supportive of Universal Service... Whether or not (or the degree to which) they achieve this goal is a matter of resources and sustained political will (highly variable of course, across the world) but that this is the stated (and a most desirable) goal is I would suggest unarguable in virtually any jurisdiction which doesn't have a President and apparently at least a portion of its intelligentsia who evidently are (whether by willfulness or disposition) profoundly unaware and incurious concerning the larger world. MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: June 13, 2008 3:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from filing an advocacy statement in this instance. > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you [snip] > So why the will of such a small minority should keep prevailing in and > informing our group's positions? Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to abandon the U-word. >[ MM asserts] that > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not required for universal > access. That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons for it. > Although even universal access to telephony has almost always needed > support of USOs or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in > the world. Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps for a few very dense inner cities. But that of course depends on how you define it. > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open market. > As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even with > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more than 1 > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And fibre > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not translated > to access to > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the presentation > I made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > last month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for > universal Internet access in India. It has been clearly established > that even supply side policies (what to say markets alone) are not > sufficient for spread of > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal access policy. To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most Indian villages implies that it would be easy and cheap to connect them all (tens of thousands, right? or is it hundreds of thousands of villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those villages generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to sustain through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India have the money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it is not used and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've just pissed away someone's health care or education funds. Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can reach all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. Indeed, I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian telecom development under your administration, I guess if we are going to waste $100 billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good intentions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 14 12:54:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:24:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <000f01c8cea5$98faad30$243c320a@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080614165451.625DF68203@smtp1.electricembers.net> And this is not only in developing countries. Quoting Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media below. "In today's society, access to information by all citizens is a right as well as a condition for prosperity. It is neither morally acceptable nor economically sustainable to leave millions of people behind, unable to use Information and Communications Technologies to their advantage" said Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media. "With today's initiative, the Commission reinforces its commitment to overcoming digital exclusion in Europe. Progress has been only half as fast as it should be. The Commission is sending today a clear signal to all parties concerned: industry, regulators and governments that we must act together now to ensure a barrier-free information society for all." http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1804&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en By the way EU already uses the term "internet for all', it did so in one recent document. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en further quotes from an EU website.. "….hampered by market failures in rural and remote areas. In such cases, well-targeted state aid may therefore be appropriate, e.g. in the form of public private partnerships to support the construction of open networks. But we have to make sure that state aid does not crowd out private initiative, nor distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.” “Where there are genuine market failures, the EU Structural Funds play a vital role in stimulating investments in broadband infrastructure and services, boosting competitiveness and innovation and enabling all regions of Europe to participate fully in the knowledge economy", added Commissioner Danuta Hübner, Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy. "Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, stressed: “Thanks to our new Rural Development policy, money is now being increasingly focused on creating new business opportunities in the countryside. There is a particularly strong concentration on broadband and information and communication technologies, where we already finance projects under our LEADER initiative – from the north of Scotland to the south of Spain. We now want to put them into the mainstream of our Rural Development programmes. The Rural Development fund is worth €70 billion between 2007-2013, with national funding on top. I urge Member States to tap the potential of broadband in their national Rural Development strategies.” http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/340&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en More than a bit strange that Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus seems to be caught in two minds about this... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > Milton, > > To reinforce and support Parminder's point, in a very large part of the > developing world Universal Service policies are in place (and Universal > Service funds are being collected) as a basis for (wait for it) the > realization of "universal service" i.e. universal service now being > reintepreted from universal telephone service to universal internet > access... (I happen at the moment to be in the airport of one of those > jurisdictions that is in the process of spending a very very considerable > amount of money in support of this mission having collected these funds > under a program explicity designated Universal Services for Under Serviced > areas... > > (I should also add that after meeting with senior official involved > intensively over the last few days, I have no doubt whatsoever that their > ultimate goal is "universal service/universal access" and that they are > prepared to back this broader mission with an appropriate enabling > institutional structure and in full recognition of the technical > requirements for the achievement of this (in part that is what we have > been > discussing). > > BTW, I also think the folks I have been meeting with would consider your > position either derisory (that you have no idea of the reality of their > particular local telecom/Internet circumstances) or personally and > nationally insulting (that they and their national government don't know > what they doing). > > Thus, I see nothing either in logic or in practice which would not allow > us > to turn the syllogism around and indicate that universal access is > something > which many countries are looking to achieve by means of the modality of > (wait for it again) policies and practices supportive of Universal > Service... > > Whether or not (or the degree to which) they achieve this goal is a matter > of resources and sustained political will (highly variable of course, > across > the world) but that this is the stated (and a most desirable) goal is I > would suggest unarguable in virtually any jurisdiction which doesn't have > a > President and apparently at least a portion of its intelligentsia who > evidently are (whether by willfulness or disposition) profoundly unaware > and > incurious concerning the larger world. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: June 13, 2008 3:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. > > :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from > filing an advocacy statement in this instance. > > > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I > > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you > [snip] > > So why the will of such a small minority should keep prevailing in and > > informing our group's positions? > > Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared consensus? > ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have addressed this > issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to abandon the U-word. > > >[ MM asserts] that > > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not > required for universal > > access. > > That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal access > without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and enforce USOs, > and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that > it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > > > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as > > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons for it. > > Although even universal access to telephony has almost always needed > > support of USOs or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in > > the world. > > Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps for > a > few very dense inner cities. > But that of course depends on how you define it. > > > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open market. > > As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even > with > > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more > than 1 > > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And > fibre > > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not > translated > > to access to > > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the presentation > > I made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > last month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for > > universal Internet access in India. It has been clearly established > > that even supply side policies (what to say markets alone) are not > > sufficient for spread of > > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. > > But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates > perfectly > why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal access > policy. > To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most Indian villages > implies > that it would be easy and cheap to connect them all (tens of thousands, > right? or is it hundreds of thousands of > villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing > access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the > so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous > amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those > villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those > villages > generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to sustain > through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India have the > money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it is not used > and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've just pissed > away someone's health care or education funds. > > Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that > counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can > reach > all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. > > I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental > growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of > universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. > Indeed, > I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian telecom > development under your administration, I guess if we are going to waste > $100 > billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good intentions. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 14 17:25:14 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:25:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <200806141654.m5EGspKn031581@mx3.syr.edu> References: <000f01c8cea5$98faad30$243c320a@michael78xnoln> <200806141654.m5EGspKn031581@mx3.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC980@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> This part of the EU statement is a good example of how this issue could be framed in a way acceptable to me. > -----Original Message----- > further quotes from an EU website.. > > "....hampered by market failures in rural and remote areas. In > such cases, well-targeted state aid may therefore be > appropriate, e.g. in the form of public private partnerships > to support the construction of open networks. But we have to > make sure that state aid does not crowd out private > initiative, nor distort competition to an extent contrary to > the common interest." Had you said something like that, it would show a recognition of and willingness to accept the good aspects of post-telecom monopoly liberalization policies. In other words, yes, I agree with you we are fighting a "proxy war" about broader political philosophies/ideologies. When you make grand pronouncements about "ensuring universal access" I can always read between the lines: expand state action in a way that reproduces all the mistakes of the post-colonial developing world's wrong turn into dirigiste and socialism. There seems to be no recognition of the many flaws and problems associated with that, only an insistence on "market failure." (Not to mention the problem that globally, there is no state). Yet, I am unwilling to concede either that your position is the majority one in civil society or even that it represents the best interests of developing countries. Or, even if it is the majority position now, I am convinced that given time and exposure to facts and logic that people will change their minds in the right direction. Off list, I will send you a paper I wrote on universal service policy, entitled, "Universal Service Policies as Wealth Redistribution." If nothing else, you will have a more accurate understanding of my position. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 14 17:41:07 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:41:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] universal service paper In-Reply-To: <20080614165451.625DF68203@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <000f01c8cea5$98faad30$243c320a@michael78xnoln> <20080614165451.625DF68203@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC981@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> attached Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GIQ-16-4-universal-service.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 599464 bytes Desc: GIQ-16-4-universal-service.pdf URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 14 19:56:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:56:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Message-ID: <7636447.1213487768647.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Milton and all, Good point Milton. I would wager and give you odds that the vast majority of US citizens support this position in the very general sense. Of course the devil is in the details... -----Original Message----- >From: Milton L Mueller >Sent: Jun 14, 2008 2:25 PM >To: Parminder , governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > >This part of the EU statement is a good example of how this issue could >be framed in a way acceptable to me. > >> -----Original Message----- >> further quotes from an EU website.. >> >> "....hampered by market failures in rural and remote areas. In >> such cases, well-targeted state aid may therefore be >> appropriate, e.g. in the form of public private partnerships >> to support the construction of open networks. But we have to >> make sure that state aid does not crowd out private >> initiative, nor distort competition to an extent contrary to >> the common interest." > >Had you said something like that, it would show a recognition of and >willingness to accept the good aspects of post-telecom monopoly >liberalization policies. > >In other words, yes, I agree with you we are fighting a "proxy war" >about broader political philosophies/ideologies. When you make grand >pronouncements about "ensuring universal access" I can always read >between the lines: expand state action in a way that reproduces all the >mistakes of the post-colonial developing world's wrong turn into >dirigiste and socialism. There seems to be no recognition of the many >flaws and problems associated with that, only an insistence on "market >failure." (Not to mention the problem that globally, there is no state). >Yet, I am unwilling to concede either that your position is the majority >one in civil society or even that it represents the best interests of >developing countries. Or, even if it is the majority position now, I am >convinced that given time and exposure to facts and logic that people >will change their minds in the right direction. > >Off list, I will send you a paper I wrote on universal service policy, >entitled, "Universal Service Policies as Wealth Redistribution." If >nothing else, you will have a more accurate understanding of my >position. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 14 20:36:35 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:36:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC980@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <000f01c8cea5$98faad30$243c320a@michael78xnoln> <200806141654.m5EGspKn031581@mx3.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC980@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080615003635.GA12969@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [14/06/08 17:25 -0400]: > >This part of the EU statement is a good example of how this issue could >be framed in a way acceptable to me. > Would you believe it, I actually agree with Milton here, in this context The universal service obligation at least in India seems to - quite often - get treated as a way to inject cash into and prop up loss making state owned telcos .. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 14 20:41:14 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:41:14 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme Message-ID: <27727863.1213490475132.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Parminder and all, I believe that it was Vint Cerf that originally quoted that "The internet is for everyone". Of course, of late I can only surmise that his everyone was and is excluded to Google customers. Hardly ethical, IMO. Thankfully, I, nor any of our members are currently Google customers or Google users, and are definately not interested in being such... -----Original Message----- >From: Parminder >Sent: Jun 14, 2008 9:54 AM >To: 'Michael Gurstein' , governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Milton L Mueller' >Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > > >And this is not only in developing countries. Quoting Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media below. > > >"In today's society, access to information by all citizens is a right as well as a condition for prosperity. It is neither morally acceptable nor economically sustainable to leave millions of people behind, unable to use Information and Communications Technologies to their advantage" said Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media. "With today's initiative, the Commission reinforces its commitment to overcoming digital exclusion in Europe. Progress has been only half as fast as it should be. The Commission is sending today a clear signal to all parties concerned: industry, regulators and governments that we must act together now to ensure a barrier-free information society for all." > >http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1804&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > >By the way EU already uses the term "internet for all', it did so in one recent document. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > >further quotes from an EU website.. > >"….hampered by market failures in rural and remote areas. In such cases, well-targeted state aid may therefore be appropriate, e.g. in the form of public private partnerships to support the construction of open networks. But we have to make sure that state aid does not crowd out private initiative, nor distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.” > >“Where there are genuine market failures, the EU Structural Funds play a vital role in stimulating investments in broadband infrastructure and services, boosting competitiveness and innovation and enabling all regions of Europe to participate fully in the knowledge economy", added Commissioner Danuta Hübner, Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy. > >"Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, stressed: “Thanks to our new Rural Development policy, money is now being increasingly focused on creating new business opportunities in the countryside. There is a particularly strong concentration on broadband and information and communication technologies, where we already finance projects under our LEADER initiative – from the north of Scotland to the south of Spain. We now want to put them into the mainstream of our Rural Development programmes. The Rural Development fund is worth €70 billion between 2007-2013, with national funding on top. I urge Member States to tap the potential of broadband in their national Rural Development strategies.” >http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/340&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > >More than a bit strange that Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus seems to be caught in two minds about this... > > >Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme >> >> Milton, >> >> To reinforce and support Parminder's point, in a very large part of the >> developing world Universal Service policies are in place (and Universal >> Service funds are being collected) as a basis for (wait for it) the >> realization of "universal service" i.e. universal service now being >> reintepreted from universal telephone service to universal internet >> access... (I happen at the moment to be in the airport of one of those >> jurisdictions that is in the process of spending a very very considerable >> amount of money in support of this mission having collected these funds >> under a program explicity designated Universal Services for Under Serviced >> areas... >> >> (I should also add that after meeting with senior official involved >> intensively over the last few days, I have no doubt whatsoever that their >> ultimate goal is "universal service/universal access" and that they are >> prepared to back this broader mission with an appropriate enabling >> institutional structure and in full recognition of the technical >> requirements for the achievement of this (in part that is what we have >> been >> discussing). >> >> BTW, I also think the folks I have been meeting with would consider your >> position either derisory (that you have no idea of the reality of their >> particular local telecom/Internet circumstances) or personally and >> nationally insulting (that they and their national government don't know >> what they doing). >> >> Thus, I see nothing either in logic or in practice which would not allow >> us >> to turn the syllogism around and indicate that universal access is >> something >> which many countries are looking to achieve by means of the modality of >> (wait for it again) policies and practices supportive of Universal >> Service... >> >> Whether or not (or the degree to which) they achieve this goal is a matter >> of resources and sustained political will (highly variable of course, >> across >> the world) but that this is the stated (and a most desirable) goal is I >> would suggest unarguable in virtually any jurisdiction which doesn't have >> a >> President and apparently at least a portion of its intelligentsia who >> evidently are (whether by willfulness or disposition) profoundly unaware >> and >> incurious concerning the larger world. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: June 13, 2008 3:09 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> > >> > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. >> >> :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from >> filing an advocacy statement in this instance. >> >> > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I >> > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you >> [snip] >> > So why the will of such a small minority should keep prevailing in and >> > informing our group's positions? >> >> Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared consensus? >> ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have addressed this >> issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to abandon the U-word. >> >> >[ MM asserts] that >> > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not >> required for universal >> > access. >> >> That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal access >> without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and enforce USOs, >> and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that >> it risks being confused with retrograde policies. >> >> > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as >> > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons for it. >> > Although even universal access to telephony has almost always needed >> > support of USOs or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in >> > the world. >> >> Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps for >> a >> few very dense inner cities. >> But that of course depends on how you define it. >> >> > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open market. >> > As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even >> with >> > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more >> than 1 >> > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And >> fibre >> > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not >> translated >> > to access to >> > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the presentation >> > I made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> > last month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for >> > universal Internet access in India. It has been clearly established >> > that even supply side policies (what to say markets alone) are not >> > sufficient for spread of >> > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. >> >> But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates >> perfectly >> why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal access >> policy. >> To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most Indian villages >> implies >> that it would be easy and cheap to connect them all (tens of thousands, >> right? or is it hundreds of thousands of >> villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing >> access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the >> so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous >> amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those >> villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those >> villages >> generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to sustain >> through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India have the >> money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it is not used >> and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've just pissed >> away someone's health care or education funds. >> >> Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that >> counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can >> reach >> all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. >> >> I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental >> growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of >> universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. >> Indeed, >> I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian telecom >> development under your administration, I guess if we are going to waste >> $100 >> billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good intentions. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tvest at eyeconomics.com Sun Jun 15 18:26:49 2008 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (tvest at eyeconomics.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:26:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme In-Reply-To: <20080614032203.15C3CE0431@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC97D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><20080614032203.15C3CE0431@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <646728129-1213568908-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2048240624-@bxe146.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> ZTIjUauu Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: "Parminder" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:51:50 To:"'Milton L Mueller'" , Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme � Milton � > Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared > consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. � It was nothing to do with an IGC process or anything... but this was really the first time I had heard anyone at all speak clearly against universal service obligations as a policy position, and so said this to make a point about how hopelessly a position against USOs is in a minority in the civil society space that we discuss this issue. � >Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. � They spoke about �abandoning� the 'universalization' term, and not universal access. �I have made the distinction in my last email. There is no point repeating the same thing. And I am very sure that both Ken and Adam strongly support universal access obligations/ funds. � > >[ MM asserts] that > > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not > required for universal > > access. > > That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal > access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and > enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that > it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > � Calling for markets to be left alone in the area of Internet access, without any public interventions, without understanding the complexities and diversities of the situations in developing countries is no less rhetorical. It is just hegemony of ideology that one position is made to sound like normal and natural, and the other unnatural, and abnormal, and therefore requiring special justifications. We wont give up progressive efforts in the South to mitigate risks on �policy confusion� in the North. � Speaking about institutional frameworks to enforce, what framework do we have globally to enforce FoE, it is almost entirely subject to national jurisdictions, so why waste out time???? � � > I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental > growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. � > But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates > perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal > access policy. � You can sit in the US and say whatever. India is rolling out its Common Services Centres (1,00,000 of them) to reach connectively along with its paraphernalia to rural India. And most developing countries are developing some such programs. � I think you can just not see the Internet as an important social and development infrastructure, especially for developing countries, which therefore often require special �public� support. �I know the issue is not about just Internet. You don�t see �development� as anything else than a process where people and communities are freed from the state�s oppression, and then things just take off� Overwhelmingly, development in developing countries, as was in developed countries when they were developing, is seen as a process that require significant �public� planning and support. �This difference of view is the real issue here, and we are fighting a proxy battle on �universal access to the internet� issue. � I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian > telecom development � � I am willing to receive it J. Thanks, while we work out the modalities. � � Parminder � > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. > > :-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from > filing an advocacy statement in this instance. > > > And status quo needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I > > suspect close to 90 percent people on this list do not agree with you > [snip] > > So why the will of such a small minority should keep > > prevailing in and informing our group's positions? > > Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared > consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have > addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to > abandon the U-word. > > >[ MM asserts] that > > universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not > required for universal > > access. > > That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal > access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and > enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that > it risks being confused with retrograde policies. > > > Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as > > mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons > > for it. Although > > even universal access to telephony has almost always needed > > support of USOs > > or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in the world. > > Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps > for a few very dense inner cities. > But that of course depends on how you define it. > > > India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open > > market. As for spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even > with > > such excess of backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more > than 1 > > percent of India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And > fibre > > runs within 50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not > translated > > to access to > > Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the > > presentation I > > made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for > > Development last > > month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for universal > > Internet access in India. It has been clearly established > > that even supply > > side policies (what to say markets alone) are not sufficient > > for spread of > > broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. > > But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates > perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal > access policy. To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most > Indian villages implies that it would be easy and cheap to connect them > all (tens of thousands, right? or is it hundreds of thousands of > villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing > access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the > so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous > amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those > villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those > villages generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to > sustain through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India > have the money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it > is not used and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've > just pissed away someone's health care or education funds. > > Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that > counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can > reach all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. > > I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental > growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of > universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee. > Indeed, I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian > telecom development under your administration, I guess if we are going > to waste $100 billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good > intentions. � ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 08:40:30 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [india-gii] Re: UNESCO book on 'Open Access to Knowledge and Information: ScholarlyLiterature and Digital Library Initiatives - The South Asian Scenario' Message-ID: <005001c8cfae$2aa8e4f0$7ffaaed0$@net> Fyi. This paper is available for online download. suresh From: jha.satish at gmail.com [mailto:jha.satish at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Satish Jha Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 4:46 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: [india-gii] Re: UNESCO book on 'Open Access to Knowledge and Information: ScholarlyLiterature and Digital Library Initiatives - The South Asian Scenario' Such initiatives may be helpful in reaching out to a larger audience and do make search a bit easier but also remind us of some of the avoidable duplication of efforts that is going on.. Its relevance to moving up the learning curve for organizations and individuals engaged in these efforts can hardly be over estimated. However, the need of the hour for initiatives at the national level may be to go beyond the obvious and explore the next stages in moving up the curve easier by an order of magnitude. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Anup Kumar, Das wrote: Dear Colleague Greetings from New Delhi. I am pleased to inform you that UNESCO New Delhi recently published a book titled " Open Access to Knowledge and Information: Scholarly Literature and Digital Library Initiatives - The South Asian Scenario" [details: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26397&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTI ON=201.html; can also be downloaded from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001585/158585e.pdf ]. UNESCO is distributing this book to library professionals and reputed libraries. If you are interested to obtain a free copy of this book for your library/ institution, kindly send a local representative to UNESCO office in New Delhi (contact person: Ms. Ajitha Vijayan, CI Sector, UNESCO House, B5/29, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029; Tel: 26713000) along with a request letter. Unfortunately, UNESCO is not in a position to send you the book by post/ courier. With Best Wishes Anup Kumar Das New Delhi +91-9911479926 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 12:41:15 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:41:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Does Africa Needs Help? Message-ID: Hi all, I stumble on this quite interesting stuff that portrays how the West patronizes dictatorship and bad governances to serve their own agenda. Aids is handed over to plunderers who stash the money in Western banks and the interest from the said money returns back as AIDS. A vicious circle, isn't it Question: Can the West outlive aids to their cronies that promote dictatorship and bad governance? How Not to Help Africa REBECCA TINSLEY June 2008 http://www.standpointmag.com/node/109/full In West Africa they describe people who waste money as being "as stupid as a white man." As if to prove their point, the so-called 'donor' nations of the affluent industrialised West are changing the way they give their aid to less developed countries. Instead of allocating money, with conditions attached, for specific projects, such as building roads or schools, we increasingly allow the recipients to decide how to spend it. This is because 'conditionality' is viewed as colonialist and 'confrontational,' to borrow the jargon of the aid industry. This new fashion for unconditional aid is led by Britain's Department for International Development (DFID) and it comes in the form of "Budget Support". It is the most recent in a long line of initiatives, dating back to the 1950s, aimed at "building capacity," ostensibly enabling developing countries to run themselves more efficiently and openly. Consequently, twenty per cent of UK aid is put directly into the coffers of governments, allowing the recipients to 'determine their own priorities.' That percentage is set to rise, and governments such as the Canadians and Scandinavians are following suit, keen to be seen as sensitive to the needs of their 'clients.' At the root of budget support is an assumption that political elites in developing countries genuinely care about the welfare of their poor, diseased and ignorant masses, when this is manifestly not always the case. Surely only politicians and civil servants seriously believe we can make poverty history by handing cash to their opposite numbers in poverty-stricken countries. As the development economist William Easterly asks, "What are the chances these billions are going to reach poor people?" The results of this policy are plain for anyone inclined to inquire: in one central African nation, children sit seventy to a classroom, straining to see the blackboard in near darkness, while the Ministry of Defence leaves the lights burning day and night in its 1500 rooms. Anti-malaria drugs and mosquito nets paid for by the British government fail to reach villages across Africa, and textbooks in local languages never arrive at schools. A comprehensive and understated survey of seventeen countries receiving budget support from DFID published by Birmingham University in 2006 finds, "…over-optimistic assumptions about the ability of international partners (meaning DFID) to influence matters that are deeply rooted in partner countries' political systems." Budget support, they conclude, "…does not transform underlying political realities." Attempts to improve efficiency according to "agreed performance targets and conditions," are always "more significant in the eyes of the donors than in those of the partner governments." The American who administers his nation's aid programme in one central African country laughs at loud at the naivety implicit in DFID's policy. Yet, curiously, there is cross-party consensus in Britain in favour of the 1960's belief that the state can solve any development problem, given a big enough purse. The same parties noisily rejected this mantra in domestic politics twenty years ago. More seriously, we ignore the concerns of African citizens who are incredulous that the rich West lectures them on the need for accountability and transparency, while bolstering their thieving or wasteful rulers with money. As a community leader in a camp in northern Uganda commented to me last month, We never see the schools or clinics. Your aid buys Mercedes for the Big Men." Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. Indeed, the shrewdest foreign 'clients' spend some budget support hiring British consultants, many of whom once worked for DFID. Then they endure marathon meetings with DFID officials, drawing up consultation papers outlining how capacity is to be built, agreeing to whatever is being prescribed. And then they carry on as usual. The corrupt African elite also understands which buttons elicit a response from well-meaning donors who are terrified of seeming colonialist or imperialist. In case you think this sounds cynical, ask yourself for whose benefit are the signs, written in English, in Ethiopia proclaiming, "Support girls' education"? The answer, of course, is visiting donors, such as DFID officials and politicians. In extreme cases, such as the notoriously corrupt Cameroon and Malawi, DFID has partly suspended funding. But why were they given budget support in the first place? Don't the people at DFID follow the latest corruption scandals in Africa Confidential? An estimated $2.3 trillion of aid has gone to Africa since 1945 with disappointing results. The World Bank reluctantly concludes time and again in its reports that higher aid often leads to worse bureaucracy and more corruption. Not surprisingly, we share the blame for this regrettable state of affairs. At independence we handed power to small elites, often from a favoured tribe, without ensuring home grown interest groups could adequately counter the private use of public power and resources, or military force used to terrorise citizens. If we were serious about fighting poverty, ignorance and disease in Africa, we would do as the people – not their rulers – want: direct more funds through reputable UK charities working with local civil society groups at village level. Real empowerment and sustainable development happens at the grassroots, not in the corridors of power. Any visitor to Africa who has bothered to listen to the people grasps this simple truth. Why don't our officials? Meanwhile, we sign cheques, tick boxes, and feel better about ourselves. Perhaps we should wonder, as the characters in Elspeth Huxley's African fable, 'The Flame Trees of Thika' did, almost a hundred years ago, for whose benefit it all is. Rebecca Tinsley is director of Waging Peace COMMENTS: 1 Permalink | Print | Email | Del.icio.us | Digg COMMENTS Anonymous June 13th, 2008 4:06 PM A compelling case - but how can the UK government ensure that those charities spend their (taxpayers') money effectively? Would it not be better to allow taxpayers to decide directly how and whether to give aid? Even if not so, there are serious foreign policy implications - giving and witholding aid allows us to influence recipient country's policies; this needs to be done more robustly through offical channels as advocated herein. Moreover, DFID should be abolished as a department and placed back under the FCO's purview ensuring a link between foreign and development policy (which would have mitigated some of the problems of Iraq) plus reducing bureaucracy. Lastly, of course, the whole concept of continuing to increase the amount aid is flawed; the problems lie more deeply rooted in the world's unfair trading system and the protectionism of European and US governments towards the developing world. The CAP most of all. Note the new protectionist axis recently announced by France and Italy and Americans move towards protectionism advocated by both McCain and Obama. -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 16 12:51:19 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:51:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Does Africa Needs Help? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080616165119.GB25092@hserus.net> If some of the dictators got "AIDS" rather than cash aid that'd probably be just desserts .. but otherwise, excellent article. One thing that she misses though is that the best sort of aid is the sort that doesnt come as a check. If people donate stuff thats not easy to sell on the open market, just comes in useful - capacity building on tools / techniques / skills etc, and if theres equipment then stuff like lankets, school books, old PCs.. that'd probably have limited resale value, though its perfectly good and functional) There are a few other assumptions - possibly quite naive ones - about how african politics work .. but yes, the underlying theme of the article, that its best to direct efforts towards capacity building rather than sign blank checks or ship over truckloads of resaleable goods is a perfectly good one. Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [16/06/08 18:41 +0200]: >Hi all, I stumble on this quite interesting stuff that portrays how >the West patronizes dictatorship and bad governances to serve their >own agenda. Aids is handed over to plunderers who stash the money in >Western banks and the interest from the said money returns back as >AIDS. A vicious circle, isn't it >Question: Can the West outlive aids to their cronies that promote >dictatorship and bad governance? > >How Not to Help Africa >REBECCA TINSLEY >June 2008 > http://www.standpointmag.com/node/109/full > > >In West Africa they describe people who waste money as being "as >stupid as a white man." As if to prove their point, the so-called >'donor' nations of the affluent industrialised West are changing the >way they give their aid to less developed countries. Instead of >allocating money, with conditions attached, for specific projects, >such as building roads or schools, we increasingly allow the >recipients to decide how to spend it. This is because 'conditionality' >is viewed as colonialist and 'confrontational,' to borrow the jargon >of the aid industry. This new fashion for unconditional aid is led by >Britain's Department for International Development (DFID) and it comes >in the form of "Budget Support". > > >It is the most recent in a long line of initiatives, dating back to >the 1950s, aimed at "building capacity," ostensibly enabling >developing countries to run themselves more efficiently and openly. > > >Consequently, twenty per cent of UK aid is put directly into the >coffers of governments, allowing the recipients to 'determine their >own priorities.' That percentage is set to rise, and governments such >as the Canadians and Scandinavians are following suit, keen to be seen >as sensitive to the needs of their 'clients.' > > >At the root of budget support is an assumption that political elites >in developing countries genuinely care about the welfare of their >poor, diseased and ignorant masses, when this is manifestly not always >the case. > > >Surely only politicians and civil servants seriously believe we can >make poverty history by handing cash to their opposite numbers in >poverty-stricken countries. As the development economist William >Easterly asks, "What are the chances these billions are going to reach >poor people?" > > >The results of this policy are plain for anyone inclined to inquire: >in one central African nation, children sit seventy to a classroom, >straining to see the blackboard in near darkness, while the Ministry >of Defence leaves the lights burning day and night in its 1500 rooms. > > >Anti-malaria drugs and mosquito nets paid for by the British >government fail to reach villages across Africa, and textbooks in >local languages never arrive at schools. > > >A comprehensive and understated survey of seventeen countries >receiving budget support from DFID published by Birmingham University >in 2006 finds, > > >"?over-optimistic assumptions about the ability of international >partners (meaning DFID) to influence matters that are deeply rooted in >partner countries' political systems." Budget support, they conclude, >"?does not transform underlying political realities." > > >Attempts to improve efficiency according to "agreed performance >targets and conditions," are always "more significant in the eyes of >the donors than in those of the partner governments." > > >The American who administers his nation's aid programme in one central >African country laughs at loud at the naivety implicit in DFID's >policy. > > >Yet, curiously, there is cross-party consensus in Britain in favour of >the 1960's belief that the state can solve any development problem, >given a big enough purse. The same parties noisily rejected this >mantra in domestic politics twenty years ago. > > >More seriously, we ignore the concerns of African citizens who are >incredulous that the rich West lectures them on the need for >accountability and transparency, while bolstering their thieving or >wasteful rulers with money. > > >As a community leader in a camp in northern Uganda commented to me >last month, We never see the schools or clinics. Your aid buys >Mercedes for the Big Men." > > >Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, >readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising >increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, >while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest >Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > >Indeed, the shrewdest foreign 'clients' spend some budget support >hiring British consultants, many of whom once worked for DFID. Then >they endure marathon meetings with DFID officials, drawing up >consultation papers outlining how capacity is to be built, agreeing to >whatever is being prescribed. And then they carry on as usual. > > >The corrupt African elite also understands which buttons elicit a >response from well-meaning donors who are terrified of seeming >colonialist or imperialist. > > >In case you think this sounds cynical, ask yourself for whose benefit >are the signs, written in English, in Ethiopia proclaiming, "Support >girls' education"? The answer, of course, is visiting donors, such as >DFID officials and politicians. > > >In extreme cases, such as the notoriously corrupt Cameroon and Malawi, >DFID has partly suspended funding. But why were they given budget >support in the first place? Don't the people at DFID follow the latest >corruption scandals in Africa Confidential? > > >An estimated $2.3 trillion of aid has gone to Africa since 1945 with >disappointing results. The World Bank reluctantly concludes time and >again in its reports that higher aid often leads to worse bureaucracy >and more corruption. > > >Not surprisingly, we share the blame for this regrettable state of >affairs. At independence we handed power to small elites, often from a >favoured tribe, without ensuring home grown interest groups could >adequately counter the private use of public power and resources, or >military force used to terrorise citizens. > > >If we were serious about fighting poverty, ignorance and disease in >Africa, we would do as the people ? not their rulers ? want: direct >more funds through reputable UK charities working with local civil >society groups at village level. Real empowerment and sustainable >development happens at the grassroots, not in the corridors of power. >Any visitor to Africa who has bothered to listen to the people grasps >this simple truth. Why don't our officials? > > >Meanwhile, we sign cheques, tick boxes, and feel better about >ourselves. Perhaps we should wonder, as the characters in Elspeth >Huxley's African fable, 'The Flame Trees of Thika' did, almost a >hundred years ago, for whose benefit it all is. > >Rebecca Tinsley is director of Waging Peace >COMMENTS: 1 Permalink | Print | Email | Del.icio.us | Digg > >COMMENTS >Anonymous >June 13th, 2008 >4:06 PM A compelling case - but how can the UK government ensure that >those charities spend their (taxpayers') money effectively? Would it >not be better to allow taxpayers to decide directly how and whether to >give aid? Even if not so, there are serious foreign policy >implications - giving and witholding aid allows us to influence >recipient country's policies; this needs to be done more robustly >through offical channels as advocated herein. Moreover, DFID should be >abolished as a department and placed back under the FCO's purview >ensuring a link between foreign and development policy (which would >have mitigated some of the problems of Iraq) plus reducing >bureaucracy. Lastly, of course, the whole concept of continuing to >increase the amount aid is flawed; the problems lie more deeply rooted >in the world's unfair trading system and the protectionism of European >and US governments towards the developing world. The CAP most of all. >Note the new protectionist axis recently announced by France and Italy >and Americans move towards protectionism advocated by both McCain and >Obama. > >-- >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 -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | suresh at hserus.net | gpg EDEDEFB9 email sturmbahnfuehrer | lower middle class unix sysadmin ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 16 19:25:52 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Does Africa Needs Help? Message-ID: <603181.77708.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> A shame then that Africa is almost incapable of governing itself. Western governments recognise a lot of the problems outlined in the article below. So don't just single out the west, what about Africa's problems in providing good governance? Care to address this as well? Kofi Annan has today. Just like the west is slowly improving its assistance, Africa is slowly improving its governance. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 17 June, 2008 2:41:15 AM Subject: [governance] Does Africa Needs Help? Hi all, I stumble on this quite interesting stuff that portrays how the West patronizes dictatorship and bad governances to serve their own agenda. Aids is handed over to plunderers who stash the money in Western banks and the interest from the said money returns back as AIDS. A vicious circle, isn't it Question: Can the West outlive aids to their cronies that promote dictatorship and bad governance? How Not to Help Africa REBECCA TINSLEY June 2008 http://www.standpointmag.com/node/109/full In West Africa they describe people who waste money as being "as stupid as a white man." As if to prove their point, the so-called 'donor' nations of the affluent industrialised West are changing the way they give their aid to less developed countries. Instead of allocating money, with conditions attached, for specific projects, such as building roads or schools, we increasingly allow the recipients to decide how to spend it. This is because 'conditionality' is viewed as colonialist and 'confrontational,' to borrow the jargon of the aid industry. This new fashion for unconditional aid is led by Britain's Department for International Development (DFID) and it comes in the form of "Budget Support". It is the most recent in a long line of initiatives, dating back to the 1950s, aimed at "building capacity," ostensibly enabling developing countries to run themselves more efficiently and openly. Consequently, twenty per cent of UK aid is put directly into the coffers of governments, allowing the recipients to 'determine their own priorities.' That percentage is set to rise, and governments such as the Canadians and Scandinavians are following suit, keen to be seen as sensitive to the needs of their 'clients.' At the root of budget support is an assumption that political elites in developing countries genuinely care about the welfare of their poor, diseased and ignorant masses, when this is manifestly not always the case. Surely only politicians and civil servants seriously believe we can make poverty history by handing cash to their opposite numbers in poverty-stricken countries. As the development economist William Easterly asks, "What are the chances these billions are going to reach poor people?" The results of this policy are plain for anyone inclined to inquire: in one central African nation, children sit seventy to a classroom, straining to see the blackboard in near darkness, while the Ministry of Defence leaves the lights burning day and night in its 1500 rooms. Anti-malaria drugs and mosquito nets paid for by the British government fail to reach villages across Africa, and textbooks in local languages never arrive at schools. A comprehensive and understated survey of seventeen countries receiving budget support from DFID published by Birmingham University in 2006 finds, "…over-optimistic assumptions about the ability of international partners (meaning DFID) to influence matters that are deeply rooted in partner countries' political systems." Budget support, they conclude, "…does not transform underlying political realities." Attempts to improve efficiency according to "agreed performance targets and conditions," are always "more significant in the eyes of the donors than in those of the partner governments." The American who administers his nation's aid programme in one central African country laughs at loud at the naivety implicit in DFID's policy. Yet, curiously, there is cross-party consensus in Britain in favour of the 1960's belief that the state can solve any development problem, given a big enough purse. The same parties noisily rejected this mantra in domestic politics twenty years ago. More seriously, we ignore the concerns of African citizens who are incredulous that the rich West lectures them on the need for accountability and transparency, while bolstering their thieving or wasteful rulers with money. As a community leader in a camp in northern Uganda commented to me last month, We never see the schools or clinics. Your aid buys Mercedes for the Big Men." Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. Indeed, the shrewdest foreign 'clients' spend some budget support hiring British consultants, many of whom once worked for DFID. Then they endure marathon meetings with DFID officials, drawing up consultation papers outlining how capacity is to be built, agreeing to whatever is being prescribed. And then they carry on as usual. The corrupt African elite also understands which buttons elicit a response from well-meaning donors who are terrified of seeming colonialist or imperialist. In case you think this sounds cynical, ask yourself for whose benefit are the signs, written in English, in Ethiopia proclaiming, "Support girls' education"? The answer, of course, is visiting donors, such as DFID officials and politicians. In extreme cases, such as the notoriously corrupt Cameroon and Malawi, DFID has partly suspended funding. But why were they given budget support in the first place? Don't the people at DFID follow the latest corruption scandals in Africa Confidential? An estimated $2.3 trillion of aid has gone to Africa since 1945 with disappointing results. The World Bank reluctantly concludes time and again in its reports that higher aid often leads to worse bureaucracy and more corruption. Not surprisingly, we share the blame for this regrettable state of affairs. At independence we handed power to small elites, often from a favoured tribe, without ensuring home grown interest groups could adequately counter the private use of public power and resources, or military force used to terrorise citizens. If we were serious about fighting poverty, ignorance and disease in Africa, we would do as the people – not their rulers – want: direct more funds through reputable UK charities working with local civil society groups at village level. Real empowerment and sustainable development happens at the grassroots, not in the corridors of power. Any visitor to Africa who has bothered to listen to the people grasps this simple truth. Why don't our officials? Meanwhile, we sign cheques, tick boxes, and feel better about ourselves. Perhaps we should wonder, as the characters in Elspeth Huxley's African fable, 'The Flame Trees of Thika' did, almost a hundred years ago, for whose benefit it all is. Rebecca Tinsley is director of Waging Peace COMMENTS: 1 Permalink | Print | Email | Del.icio.us | Digg COMMENTS Anonymous June 13th, 2008 4:06 PM A compelling case - but how can the UK government ensure that those charities spend their (taxpayers') money effectively? Would it not be better to allow taxpayers to decide directly how and whether to give aid? Even if not so, there are serious foreign policy implications - giving and witholding aid allows us to influence recipient country's policies; this needs to be done more robustly through offical channels as advocated herein. Moreover, DFID should be abolished as a department and placed back under the FCO's purview ensuring a link between foreign and development policy (which would have mitigated some of the problems of Iraq) plus reducing bureaucracy. Lastly, of course, the whole concept of continuing to increase the amount aid is flawed; the problems lie more deeply rooted in the world's unfair trading system and the protectionism of European and US governments towards the developing world. The CAP most of all. Note the new protectionist axis recently announced by France and Italy and Americans move towards protectionism advocated by both McCain and Obama. -- 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jun 17 00:02:05 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:02:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] By end June 17th: Endorsement: OECD Civil Society Declaration Message-ID: <20080617040300.1D71F55E100@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone *** Organisations are invited to endorse the OECD CS Declaration (see below) - some of you would have been involved in the drafting on the publically accessible Public Voice Coalition list.. if any would like to endorse, please let me know by the end of the day (offlist) . I am sorry for the short notice but the declaration was only finalised yesterday. *** ==== the statement is in pdf format here: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf and in text below.. thanks a lot karen ==== June 2008 1 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" CIVIL SOCIETY - TUAC "THE SEOUL DECLARATION" TO THE OECD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY Seoul, Korea 16 June 2008 This gathering of civil society organizations and organized labor at the OECD Ministerial Conference on the Future of the Internet Economy provides a unique opportunity to bring to the attention of the OECD Ministers assembled and the OECD member countries the concerns and aspirations of people around the globe, those who are on the Internet and those who are not. We thank the OECD and the Government of Korea for the opportunity to organize a civil society and labor event and to participate in the OECD Ministerial Conference. Civil society and labor together prepared a paper for the OECD and organized a conference "Making the future of the Internet work for citizens, consumers and workers." A wide range of organizations participated in this effort, and this Declaration builds on its results. A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY The policy goals for the Future Internet Economy should be considered within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion of democratic institutions, access to information, and the provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communication networks and services. Compliance with international human rights standards and respect for the rule of law, as well as effective human rights protection, must be the baseline for assessing global information society policies. Economic growth should be for the many and not the few. The Internet should be available to all. We therefore call attention of the OECD to Ministers to the following issues and we make the following recommendations: * Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated around the globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures such as content filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on so-called "harmful content." We urge the OECD to defend freedom of expression and to oppose mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, and criminalization of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards. * Protection of Privacy and Transparency, We reaffirm our support for the OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument setting out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data. We recommend adoption of the recent policy guidance on RFID and Online Identity Theft as Council Recommendations. We call on OECD countries to adopt and enforce data protection laws covering all sectors, both online and offline, and to establish international data protection standards that are legally enforceable. We further urge member states to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability for all data processing for border security, identification, and decision-making concerning individuals. * Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the success of the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that consumer protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital products to the same extent that other consumer goods and services are covered. We recommend that the OECD adopt the policy proposals on Empowering Consumers in communications Services and in Mobile Commerce as Council Recommendations, and that the OECD member countries implement these recommendations. We support the OECD's efforts to facilitate crossborder enforcement of anti-spam laws and to develop effective online dispute resolution mechanisms. * Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member countries promote learning and training pportunities for workers and address the technological and organizationalchange in the workplace. We further urge the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of the ICT industry and to promote compliance with core labor standards and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. * Promotion of Access to Knowledge. We support open access to government-funded scientific and scholarly works and endorse the OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data. We support the OECD Recommendation for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public Information. OECD countries should oppose extensions of copyright terms and private ownership of essential knowledge and cultural information that can be made available on the Internet. We recommend that the OECD undertake a study on the importance of copyright exceptions for education, libraries and archives, the disability community, and new innovative services. * Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to users. Global Internet policymaking should involve equal participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders. We call upon the OECD member states to support the Internet Governance Forum and to promote the multi-stakeholder process of the World Summit on the Information Society. * Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making processes should be open and should encourage competition. This promotes innovation and development. We support the procurement policies that promote open standards, open data formats, and free and open software. We further recommend that the OECD Member Countries oppose discrimination by network providers against particular applications, devices, or content and preserve the Internet's role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication. * Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge the OECD member countries to maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property protection that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least restrictive for the development of new technologies, and that promotes creativity, innovation, and learning. We support the OECD Policy Guidance for Digital Content. OECD countries should oppose proposals that would deny individuals access to all Internet services and opportunities based on alleged copyright infringement. We are also concerned about the secrecy of the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the possibility of policies that may limit legitimate business activity, the participative web, and e-government service delivery. * Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform for innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and share their views. New forms of media and new applications are emerging that challenge old paradigms and enable broader public participation. At the same June 2008 3 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" time, dominant Internet firms are moving to consolidate their control over the Internet. It is vitally important for the OECD to develop a better understanding of the challenge industry consolidations pose to the open Internet. The OECD Policy Guidance on Convergence and Next Generation Networks provides a basis this work. * Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all. OECD member countries should ensure that all residents have the means to access the Internet and should provide public Internet access, training and support. Particular attention should be paid to rural, remote and aboriginal populations, as well as the disability community. * Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the OECD to promote access to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of language, art, science, and literature in our world. The deployment of International Domain Names should be a priority. PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND LABOUR This participation of civil society and organized labor reaffirms the role of all stakeholders in the Future of the Internet Economy. Now it is time to formalize this process. In 1998 civil society and labor urged the OECD Ministerial Conference in Ottawa to establish an Advisory Council, similar to the Business Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) for business and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) for labor. We said that this new Advisory Council should include civil society groups in such fields as human rights and democracy, privacy and data protection, consumer protection, and access to information and knowledge. We urge the OECD to establish now the Civil Society Advisory Committee. The creation of an OECD Civil Society Advisory Committee is necessary to help realize the democratic goals of inclusion, participation, transparency and accountability at the OECD. The OECD offers an important forum for the discussion of policies concerning the future of the Internet. We welcome this dialogue and urge the Ministers and members countries of the OECD to fully engage civil society and labor organizations within their own countries. In all decisions related to the Internet economy, we advise the OECD Ministers and the members countries to give particular attention to those indicators concerning literacy, education, and health. The success of the Internet Economy should be measured by the well-being of citizens, and not simply the extent of technology diffusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Jun 17 08:40:30 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:40:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] By end June 17th: Endorsement: OECD Civil Society Declaration In-Reply-To: <20080617040300.1D71F55E100@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20080617040300.1D71F55E100@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Karen, After a serious debate about Seoul Declaration ,we enjoy others and accept to endorse it. Baudouin 2008/6/17 karen banks : > hi everyone > > *** Organisations are invited to endorse the OECD CS Declaration (see > below) - some of you would have been involved in the drafting on the > publically accessible Public Voice Coalition list.. > > if any would like to endorse, please let me know by the end of the day > (offlist) . I am sorry for the short notice but the declaration was only > finalised yesterday. *** > > ==== > > the statement is in pdf format here: > http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf > > and in text below.. > > thanks a lot > > karen > ==== > > June 2008 1 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" > > CIVIL SOCIETY - TUAC > > "THE SEOUL DECLARATION" TO THE OECD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF > THE INTERNET ECONOMY > > Seoul, Korea > > 16 June 2008 > > This gathering of civil society organizations and organized labor at the > OECD Ministerial Conference on the Future of the Internet Economy provides a > unique opportunity to bring to the attention of the OECD Ministers assembled > and the OECD member countries the concerns and aspirations of people around > the globe, those who are on the Internet and those who are not. We thank the > OECD and the Government of Korea for the opportunity to organize a civil > society and labor event and to participate in the OECD Ministerial > Conference. Civil society and labor together prepared a paper for the OECD > and organized a conference "Making the future of the Internet work for > citizens, consumers and workers." A wide range of organizations participated > in this effort, and this Declaration builds on its results. > > A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY > > The policy goals for the Future Internet Economy should be considered > within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion of > democratic institutions, access to information, and the provision of > affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communication networks > and services. Compliance with international human rights standards and > respect for the rule of law, as well as effective human rights protection, > must be the baseline for assessing global information society policies. > Economic growth should be for the many and not the few. The Internet should > be available to all. We therefore call attention of the OECD to Ministers to > the following issues and we make the following recommendations: > > * Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated around the > globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures such as content > filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on so-called "harmful > content." We urge the OECD to defend freedom of expression and to oppose > mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, and criminalization of > content > that is protected under international freedom of expression standards. > > * Protection of Privacy and Transparency, We reaffirm our support for the > OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument setting out > minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data. We recommend > adoption of the recent policy guidance on RFID and Online Identity Theft as > Council Recommendations. We call on OECD countries to adopt and enforce data > protection laws covering all sectors, both online and offline, and to > establish international data protection standards that are legally > enforceable. We further urge member states to ensure fairness, transparency, > and accountability for all data processing for border security, > identification, and decision-making concerning individuals. > > * Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the success of > the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that consumer protection laws > are properly enforced and cover digital products to the same extent that > other consumer goods and services are covered. We recommend that the OECD > adopt the policy proposals on Empowering Consumers in communications > Services and in Mobile Commerce as Council Recommendations, and that the > OECD member countries implement these recommendations. We support the OECD's > efforts to facilitate crossborder enforcement of anti-spam laws and to > develop effective online dispute resolution mechanisms. > > * Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member > countries promote learning and training pportunities for workers and address > the technological and organizationalchange in the workplace. We further urge > the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of the ICT industry and to promote > compliance with core labor standards and the OECD Guidelines for > Multinational Enterprises. > > * Promotion of Access to Knowledge. We support open access to > government-funded scientific and scholarly works and endorse the OECD > Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data. We support the OECD > Recommendation for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public > Information. OECD countries should oppose extensions of copyright terms and > private ownership of essential knowledge and cultural information that can > be made available on the Internet. We recommend that the OECD undertake a > study on the importance of copyright exceptions for education, libraries and > archives, the disability community, and new innovative services. > > * Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect > democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to users. > Global Internet policymaking should involve equal participation of all > people, countries, and stakeholders. We call upon the OECD member states to > support the Internet Governance Forum and to promote the multi-stakeholder > process of the World Summit on the Information Society. > > * Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making > processes should be open and should encourage competition. This promotes > innovation and development. We support the procurement policies that promote > open standards, open data formats, and free and open software. We further > recommend that the OECD Member Countries oppose discrimination by network > providers against particular applications, devices, or content and preserve > the Internet's role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic > communication. > > * Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge the OECD member > countries to maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property > protection that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least restrictive > for the development of new technologies, and that promotes creativity, > innovation, and learning. We support the OECD Policy Guidance for Digital > Content. OECD countries should oppose proposals that would deny individuals > access to all Internet services and opportunities based on alleged > copyright infringement. We are also concerned about the secrecy of the > "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the > possibility of policies that may limit legitimate business activity, the > participative web, and e-government service delivery. > > * Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform for > innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and share their > views. New forms of media and new applications are emerging that challenge > old paradigms and enable broader public participation. At the same June 2008 > 3 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" time, dominant Internet firms > are moving to consolidate their control over the Internet. It is vitally > important for the OECD to develop a better understanding of the challenge > industry consolidations pose to the open Internet. The OECD Policy Guidance > on Convergence and Next Generation Networks provides a basis this work. > > * Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all. OECD > member countries should ensure that all residents have the means to access > the Internet and should provide public Internet access, training and > support. Particular attention should be paid to rural, remote and aboriginal > populations, as well as the disability community. > > * Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the OECD to promote access > to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that the Internet > economy reflects the true diversity of language, art, science, and > literature in our world. The deployment of International Domain Names should > be a priority. > > PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND LABOUR > > This participation of civil society and organized labor reaffirms the role > of all stakeholders in the Future of the Internet Economy. Now it is time to > formalize this process. In 1998 civil society and labor urged the OECD > Ministerial Conference in Ottawa to establish an Advisory Council, similar > to the Business Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) for business and the > Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) for labor. We said that this new > Advisory Council should include civil society groups in such fields as human > rights and democracy, privacy and data protection, consumer protection, and > access to information and knowledge. > > We urge the OECD to establish now the Civil Society Advisory Committee. The > creation of an OECD Civil Society Advisory Committee is necessary to help > realize the democratic goals of inclusion, participation, transparency and > accountability at the OECD. > > The OECD offers an important forum for the discussion of policies > concerning the future of the Internet. We welcome this dialogue and urge the > Ministers and members countries of the OECD to fully engage civil society > and labor organizations within their own countries. In all decisions related > to the Internet economy, we advise the OECD Ministers and the members > countries to give particular attention to those indicators concerning > literacy, education, and health. The success of the Internet Economy should > be measured by the well-being of citizens, and not simply the extent of > technology diffusion. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Jun 19 05:53:05 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:53:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080619095305.GA13231@nic.fr> > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 19 05:58:33 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? Message-ID: <863192.59227.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not always the case. ----- Original Message ---- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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.oppermann at gmail.com Thu Jun 19 15:43:55 2008 From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:43:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <863192.59227.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <863192.59227.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <485AB6FB.7050505@googlemail.com> I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 David Goldstein schrieb: > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not always the case. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > >> Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, >> readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising >> increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, >> while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest >> Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. >> > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Jun 20 06:05:17 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <485AB6FB.7050505@googlemail.com> References: <863192.59227.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <485AB6FB.7050505@googlemail.com> Message-ID: Daniel You hit the nail at th right point. Aaron On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > always the case. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 20 06:18:30 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Message-ID: <805400.58866.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Daniel You hit the nail at th right point. Aaron On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > always the case. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Jun 20 07:11:00 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:11:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <805400.58866.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <805400.58866.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson Mandela. African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of clarvoyance. Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and incarcerated him for 4 months. On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by the West. I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to outcast terrorism. I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine in Common Sense. There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your umbrella before it starts to rain. On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > Daniel > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > Aaron > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ginger at paque.net Fri Jun 20 07:26:55 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:56:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help?---Latin America comment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <485b943f.285f2c0a.2537.ffff93b2@mx.google.com> Nyangkwe Agien said: "For the reason of national interests today the financial flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely better than waiting for someone to fix the problem." Excellent insight into Latin America!! Observing the international IG policy processes, I see this coming into play as well. Since the problems in Africa are critical, attention is deservingly turned to that area. However, unfortunately, we in Latin America are not always managing to solve our problems, nor take our place in international processes. Sometimes for lack of education, skills and readiness-including political will-we simply step back and ignore the problems, until they become emergencies. Somewhat like untrained teenagers, intelligent and capable, but out on their own a bit too soon. I don't have any solutions or insights-except to watch Brazil, which seems to be leading the way. But I appreciated your comment too much to just let it slip by. Thanks. Anyone else have ideas on this? Saludos, Ginger -----Mensaje original----- De: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Junio de 2008 05:35 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Daniel You hit the nail at th right point. Aaron On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > always the case. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 20 09:12:04 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Message-ID: <248384.13420.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Aaron et al, First comment is thread is undoubtedly outside of the remit of this list. Second is I agree the west has failed Africa in many ways. I was happy to admit this. But there are some comments that ignore Africa's leader's role in the poor state of governance in the country. Maybe they know this but didn't feel it was necessary to say it, maybe they don't want to admit the obvious. So yes, the west has supported, and still does, deplorable leaders in Africa. That said, and off the top of my head I can't recall who they are, but there are some excellent leaders in Africa who do a very good job given the circumstances. Some of them even get excellent western aid. It's a very complicated issue. Also, while you mention some of the west's leader's deplorable actions in supporting detestable leaders in Africa, Africa itself has done itself no favours in supporting their fellow deplorable leaders. Witness, until in recent weeks, the almost deafening silence among Africa's leaders at condemning Mugabe. Mbeki here, by most accounts, has failed miserably when he was given the opportunity by the west to show he could be a statesman. And if Zimbabwe had rich mineral resources, it would be interesting to see how different the west's actions would have been! So yes, I acknowledge the west has failed Africa badly in many areas, especially when they were colonial rulers. There are still problems ongoing as a result of these times. But there is a time when Africans, and especially their leaders, need to take some responsibility. Both sides have failed the African continent's people. There are some shining lights, but not enough unfortunately. And if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, I shall continue it as private discussion given this is an internet governance list! David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 9:11:00 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? David I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson Mandela. African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of clarvoyance. Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and incarcerated him for 4 months. On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by the West. I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to outcast terrorism. I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine in Common Sense. There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your umbrella before it starts to rain. On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > Daniel > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > Aaron > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Jun 20 09:44:47 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:44:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <248384.13420.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <248384.13420.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi David Alluding to my analysis as a threat. You appear to be in the Hitler world where Goebbel's window dreesing words were tolerated. You know what happened? Hitler did not get the true story of what was happy on the war front and therefore lost the war. I am just trying to analyse a situation and project the outcome. I don't thing that I hav th capacity offer threats. LET NO ONE GET SCARED AT ALL Aaron On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi Aaron et al, > > First comment is thread is undoubtedly outside of the remit of this list. > > Second is I agree the west has failed Africa in many ways. I was happy to admit this. But there are some comments that ignore Africa's leader's role in the poor state of governance in the country. Maybe they know this but didn't feel it was necessary to say it, maybe they don't want to admit the obvious. So yes, the west has supported, and still does, deplorable leaders in Africa. That said, and off the top of my head I can't recall who they are, but there are some excellent leaders in Africa who do a very good job given the circumstances. Some of them even get excellent western aid. It's a very complicated issue. > > Also, while you mention some of the west's leader's deplorable actions in supporting detestable leaders in Africa, Africa itself has done itself no favours in supporting their fellow deplorable leaders. Witness, until in recent weeks, the almost deafening silence among Africa's leaders at condemning Mugabe. Mbeki here, by most accounts, has failed miserably when he was given the opportunity by the west to show he could be a statesman. > > And if Zimbabwe had rich mineral resources, it would be interesting to see how different the west's actions would have been! > > So yes, I acknowledge the west has failed Africa badly in many areas, especially when they were colonial rulers. There are still problems ongoing as a result of these times. But there is a time when Africans, and especially their leaders, need to take some responsibility. > > Both sides have failed the African continent's people. There are some shining lights, but not enough unfortunately. > > And if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, I shall continue it as private discussion given this is an internet governance list! > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 9:11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > David > > I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But > mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt > African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson > Mandela. > African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West > (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election > riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar > Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist > instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of > clarvoyance. > Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are > you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are > dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" > Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, > whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but > he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired > land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) > where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. > They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their > Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and > incarcerated him for 4 months. > On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if > Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by > the West. > I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist > fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has > faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to > outcast terrorism. > I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa > may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine > in Common Sense. > There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say > "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your > umbrella before it starts to rain. > > > On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > > > Daniel > > > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > > > Aaron > > > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 20 10:45:26 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Message-ID: <888828.47632.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Aaron, I hope it is the case you misread my email and read "threat" when I actually said "thread", otherwise there's no point your comments every being taken seriously. I actually should have said "this thread..." re-reading what I wrote... David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 11:44:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Hi David Alluding to my analysis as a threat. You appear to be in the Hitler world where Goebbel's window dreesing words were tolerated. You know what happened? Hitler did not get the true story of what was happy on the war front and therefore lost the war. I am just trying to analyse a situation and project the outcome. I don't thing that I hav th capacity offer threats. LET NO ONE GET SCARED AT ALL Aaron On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi Aaron et al, > > First comment is thread is undoubtedly outside of the remit of this list. > > Second is I agree the west has failed Africa in many ways. I was happy to admit this. But there are some comments that ignore Africa's leader's role in the poor state of governance in the country. Maybe they know this but didn't feel it was necessary to say it, maybe they don't want to admit the obvious. So yes, the west has supported, and still does, deplorable leaders in Africa. That said, and off the top of my head I can't recall who they are, but there are some excellent leaders in Africa who do a very good job given the circumstances. Some of them even get excellent western aid. It's a very complicated issue. > > Also, while you mention some of the west's leader's deplorable actions in supporting detestable leaders in Africa, Africa itself has done itself no favours in supporting their fellow deplorable leaders. Witness, until in recent weeks, the almost deafening silence among Africa's leaders at condemning Mugabe. Mbeki here, by most accounts, has failed miserably when he was given the opportunity by the west to show he could be a statesman. > > And if Zimbabwe had rich mineral resources, it would be interesting to see how different the west's actions would have been! > > So yes, I acknowledge the west has failed Africa badly in many areas, especially when they were colonial rulers. There are still problems ongoing as a result of these times. But there is a time when Africans, and especially their leaders, need to take some responsibility. > > Both sides have failed the African continent's people. There are some shining lights, but not enough unfortunately. > > And if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, I shall continue it as private discussion given this is an internet governance list! > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 9:11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > David > > I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But > mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt > African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson > Mandela. > African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West > (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election > riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar > Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist > instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of > clarvoyance. > Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are > you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are > dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" > Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, > whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but > he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired > land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) > where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. > They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their > Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and > incarcerated him for 4 months. > On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if > Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by > the West. > I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist > fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has > faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to > outcast terrorism. > I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa > may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine > in Common Sense. > There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say > "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your > umbrella before it starts to rain. > > > On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > > > Daniel > > > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > > > Aaron > > > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 20 11:03:50 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:03:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: References: <248384.13420.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080620150350.GB1616@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [20/06/08 15:44 +0200]: >Alluding to my analysis as a threat. You appear to be in the Hitler >world where Goebbel's window dreesing words were tolerated. >You know what happened? Hitler did not get the true story of what was Its not a threat. But if you think Mugabe is anything other than a petty thug (not that his opposition looks very appetizing..) then I am sorry but I must disagree with you. This thread is as far afield from igov as anything I can think of, though - unless the Zimbabwean opposition decides to use the internet for their political campaigns. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Jun 21 01:37:27 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Message-ID: Does Africa Need Help? YES of course it does, It needs attention to it's IT infrastructure It needs sustainability It needs social transportability It needs public and private accessability - Africa needs to afford the luxuries, the rest of us depend upon. It not just IT-Systems, in fact its not even Hard&Soft ware, its a dependable political system, a dependable monetary system, a dependable economic plateau, a dependable social structure ... It needs every thing 'WE' take for granted, and they don't. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Jun 21 05:34:22 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:34:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks to Yehuda. I may add that instead of investing on corrupt regimes that will never channel the resources to the grass roots. Such aids could be channelled through well proven NGOs (they exist). So,e ,ay say that local governments will not allow that. This is where some cohersive diplomacy by a transnational corporate institution like the World Bank can come in. The World bank have that mantle they can cow these corrupt institutions allow aids being channelled through credible NGOs that can bring about results. David I did not have my eye glasses on when I read you. Sincere apologies for misreading. Cheers Aaron On 6/21/08, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Does Africa Need Help? > > YES of course it does, > > It needs attention to it's IT infrastructure > It needs sustainability > It needs social transportability > It needs public and private accessability > > - > > Africa needs to afford the luxuries, > the rest of us depend upon. > > It not just IT-Systems, in fact its not even Hard&Soft ware, its a dependable > political system, a dependable monetary system, a dependable economic plateau, > a dependable social structure ... > > It needs every thing 'WE' take for granted, > and they don't. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From puna_gb at yahoo.com Sun Jun 22 08:10:19 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <888828.47632.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <550513.99243.qm@web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All,   I am sorry i don`t quite know where this conversation began but i started to see it at the point where someone said AFRICAN governments sing the music that donors would love to hear, in order to get aid and then misuse the aid money for other things and not the intended purpose. I would like to differ and speak out for my country, Botswana.  I will just state the example of the aid that Botswana has been given with regards to HIV. Donors are still helping in most onstances in this regard because they can see where the money is going.  HIV positive people are on treatment and the aid is in amounts that Botswana would not ordinarily afford --- On Fri, 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: From: David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 5:45 PM Hi Aaron, I hope it is the case you misread my email and read "threat" when I actually said "thread", otherwise there's no point your comments every being taken seriously. I actually should have said "this thread..." re-reading what I wrote... David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 11:44:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Hi David Alluding to my analysis as a threat. You appear to be in the Hitler world where Goebbel's window dreesing words were tolerated. You know what happened? Hitler did not get the true story of what was happy on the war front and therefore lost the war. I am just trying to analyse a situation and project the outcome. I don't thing that I hav th capacity offer threats. LET NO ONE GET SCARED AT ALL Aaron On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi Aaron et al, > > First comment is thread is undoubtedly outside of the remit of this list. > > Second is I agree the west has failed Africa in many ways. I was happy to admit this. But there are some comments that ignore Africa's leader's role in the poor state of governance in the country. Maybe they know this but didn't feel it was necessary to say it, maybe they don't want to admit the obvious. So yes, the west has supported, and still does, deplorable leaders in Africa. That said, and off the top of my head I can't recall who they are, but there are some excellent leaders in Africa who do a very good job given the circumstances. Some of them even get excellent western aid. It's a very complicated issue. > > Also, while you mention some of the west's leader's deplorable actions in supporting detestable leaders in Africa, Africa itself has done itself no favours in supporting their fellow deplorable leaders. Witness, until in recent weeks, the almost deafening silence among Africa's leaders at condemning Mugabe. Mbeki here, by most accounts, has failed miserably when he was given the opportunity by the west to show he could be a statesman. > > And if Zimbabwe had rich mineral resources, it would be interesting to see how different the west's actions would have been! > > So yes, I acknowledge the west has failed Africa badly in many areas, especially when they were colonial rulers. There are still problems ongoing as a result of these times. But there is a time when Africans, and especially their leaders, need to take some responsibility. > > Both sides have failed the African continent's people. There are some shining lights, but not enough unfortunately. > > And if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, I shall continue it as private discussion given this is an internet governance list! > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 9:11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > David > > I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But > mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt > African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson > Mandela. > African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West > (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election > riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar > Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist > instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of > clarvoyance. > Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are > you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are > dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" > Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, > whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but > he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired > land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) > where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. > They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their > Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and > incarcerated him for 4 months. > On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if > Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by > the West. > I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist > fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has > faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to > outcast terrorism. > I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa > may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine > in Common Sense. > There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say > "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your > umbrella before it starts to rain. > > > On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > > > Daniel > > > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > > > Aaron > > > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 puna_gb at yahoo.com Sun Jun 22 08:10:09 2008 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? In-Reply-To: <888828.47632.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <842441.58100.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All,   I am sorry i don`t quite know where this conversation began but i started to see it at the point where someone said AFRICAN governments sing the music that donors would love to hear, in order to get aid and then misuse the aid money for other things and not the intended purpose. I would like to differ and speak out for my country, Botswana.  I will just state the example of the aid that Botswana has been given with regards to HIV. Donors are still helping in most onstances in this regard because they can see where the money is going.  HIV positive people are on treatment and the aid is in amounts that Botswana would not ordinarily afford --- On Fri, 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: From: David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 5:45 PM Hi Aaron, I hope it is the case you misread my email and read "threat" when I actually said "thread", otherwise there's no point your comments every being taken seriously. I actually should have said "this thread..." re-reading what I wrote... David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 11:44:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? Hi David Alluding to my analysis as a threat. You appear to be in the Hitler world where Goebbel's window dreesing words were tolerated. You know what happened? Hitler did not get the true story of what was happy on the war front and therefore lost the war. I am just trying to analyse a situation and project the outcome. I don't thing that I hav th capacity offer threats. LET NO ONE GET SCARED AT ALL Aaron On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi Aaron et al, > > First comment is thread is undoubtedly outside of the remit of this list. > > Second is I agree the west has failed Africa in many ways. I was happy to admit this. But there are some comments that ignore Africa's leader's role in the poor state of governance in the country. Maybe they know this but didn't feel it was necessary to say it, maybe they don't want to admit the obvious. So yes, the west has supported, and still does, deplorable leaders in Africa. That said, and off the top of my head I can't recall who they are, but there are some excellent leaders in Africa who do a very good job given the circumstances. Some of them even get excellent western aid. It's a very complicated issue. > > Also, while you mention some of the west's leader's deplorable actions in supporting detestable leaders in Africa, Africa itself has done itself no favours in supporting their fellow deplorable leaders. Witness, until in recent weeks, the almost deafening silence among Africa's leaders at condemning Mugabe. Mbeki here, by most accounts, has failed miserably when he was given the opportunity by the west to show he could be a statesman. > > And if Zimbabwe had rich mineral resources, it would be interesting to see how different the west's actions would have been! > > So yes, I acknowledge the west has failed Africa badly in many areas, especially when they were colonial rulers. There are still problems ongoing as a result of these times. But there is a time when Africans, and especially their leaders, need to take some responsibility. > > Both sides have failed the African continent's people. There are some shining lights, but not enough unfortunately. > > And if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, I shall continue it as private discussion given this is an internet governance list! > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 9:11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > David > > I agree with you on the currupt nature of our African leaders. But > mark you, it takes two to tango. Th West do not like un corrupt > African leaders, except the immunized ones like the venerable Nelson > Mandela. > African leaders that hav their peopl at hart ar done away by th West > (Patric Lumumba, Thomasq Sankara) while kleptocrats and election > riggers are given rd carpet treatrment by th West (Paul Biya, Omar > Bongo et all. Th hoollibaloo on Mugabe is all against his nationalist > instinct. Although the Zimbwabwe laeder stands faultd for lack of > clarvoyance. > Thomas asked this memorable question in his book, Common Sense:"are > you defending us against our enemies for our behalf or you are > dfending us against our enemies on your behalve" > Why is the West so vocal on Mugabe and not on Paul Biya of Cameroon, > whose country is going through the worst conomic-cum social crisis but > he continus to rig himselv to power. The Amricans have acquired > land near the Cameroon Presidential palace (for free? I do not know) > where they have a sumptious building and are all contended with that. > They were not even moved when Cameroon Police men stormed their > Embassy and arrested a human rights activist (Joe La Conscince) and > incarcerated him for 4 months. > On another point David, what is this organization called UNDP doing if > Africa, if not to enshrine a refine corruption practise mapped out by > the West. > I humbly believe that the hardened position within Islamist > fundamentalism is caused by certain frustration that the West has > faild to look into. And the hardened positions have grown up to > outcast terrorism. > I am afraid that in the next 30 years, de--westernization in Africa > may suffer the same fete. These are trying times, wrote Thomas Paine > in Common Sense. > There is a saying in my village (kugwe in North West Cameroon that say > "Zorn azor chiri bongkirie mberng'nooh" . Translated, buy your > umbrella before it starts to rain. > > > On 6/20/08, David Goldstein wrote: > > I don't disagree with these comments about the failings of western policies. It still doesn't take away from the fact that many African countries are corrupt and incompetent and nobody here seems to want to address this issue and instead want to blame African government's failings only on western policies. > > > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Oppermann > > Sent: Friday, 20 June, 2008 8:05:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Does Africa Need Help? > > > > Daniel > > > > You hit the nail at th right point. > > > > Aaron > > > > On 6/19/08, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > > > I understood Stephane's comment in a different way. To me it seems that > > > he put the finger on the fact that Northern (or Western or > > > industrialized) countries do not spend money on development politics > > > just because they are "nice" but because it serves their own interests. > > > > > > Development politics started during the Cold War to make sure who is on > > > your side. For the reason of national interests today the financial > > > flows go mainly to Asian and African countries almost ignoring poverty, > > > civil war and the question of failing states in Latin America. Looking > > > on the positive aspect: Latin American governments have to resolve their > > > problems on their own or with regional support which is definitely > > > better than waiting for someone to fix the problem. > > > > > > Here is an interesting paper about the effectiveness of aid politics: > > > > > > http://www.iadb.org/IDBDocs.cfm?docnum=1158725 > > > > > > > > > > > > David Goldstein schrieb: > > > > Stephane's comment is just like saying all African governments are > > > incompetent and corrupt. It's partly true, it's changing, but definitely not > > > always the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June, 2008 7:53:05 PM > > > > Subject: [governance] Re: Does Africa Needs Help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some recipient governments grasp exactly what donors want to hear, > > > > > readily agreeing to 'capacity building' programmes emphasising > > > > > increased accountability. They dutifully echo the donor's jargon, > > > > > while laughing behind our backs, and flicking through the latest > > > > > Mercedes catalogue for their new ministerial limousine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A long paper to avoid the obvious conclusion: aid is not intended to > > > > help the local people but to subsidize northern industries such as > > > > Mercedes (as in the above example) or Cisco (to take a example closer > > > > from our field). That way, most aid will come back to the North. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > www.yahoo7.com.au/mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 23 01:34:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:04:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections Message-ID: <20080623053452.34E5E678AF@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear All This is to commence the process of co-coordinator elections. I am sending out the email as given at the end of this email to all those who are subscribed to the IGC mailing list. Out of the members list so prepared, those who have been on the list for 2 month prior to June 30th will be included in the voters' list. I will give 21 days to list participants to respond, after which the voters list will be prepared. The elections will be held in the week starting 14th July. The two candidates for the elections are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, to whom I apologize for this extra-ordinary delay in holding the elections, which was mostly due to some complications regarding preparing a voters list. Parminder Dear IGC List Participant We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus as per its Charter ( http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). The charter defines members as " individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus". We request you to go through the charter and if you are willing to subscribe to it indicate so in reply to this email. You may reply within 3 weeks of receiving this email to get your name in the members list. The list of course remains open for any new subscription, at all times. However, the list generated at the end of 3 weeks, seen together with the condition that the member need to be subscribed to the IGC email list for 2 months prior to that date, will be used to prepare the voting list for voting for our new co-coordinator. Thanks, and best regards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 23 01:37:07 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:07:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20080623053452.34E5E678AF@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080623053452.34E5E678AF@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <004a01c8d4f3$2e503910$8af0ab30$@net> Thank you for sending this along. And it is a very hard choice to make between two excellent candidates. regards suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] co-coordinator elections Dear All This is to commence the process of co-coordinator elections. I am sending out the email as given at the end of this email to all those who are subscribed to the IGC mailing list. Out of the members list so prepared, those who have been on the list for 2 month prior to June 30th will be included in the voters' list. I will give 21 days to list participants to respond, after which the voters list will be prepared. The elections will be held in the week starting 14th July. The two candidates for the elections are David Goldstein and Ian Peter, to whom I apologize for this extra-ordinary delay in holding the elections, which was mostly due to some complications regarding preparing a voters list. Parminder Dear IGC List Participant We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus as per its Charter ( http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). The charter defines members as " individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus". We request you to go through the charter and if you are willing to subscribe to it indicate so in reply to this email. You may reply within 3 weeks of receiving this email to get your name in the members list. The list of course remains open for any new subscription, at all times. However, the list generated at the end of 3 weeks, seen together with the condition that the member need to be subscribed to the IGC email list for 2 months prior to that date, will be used to prepare the voting list for voting for our new co-coordinator. Thanks, and best regards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Jun 23 09:27:05 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:27:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Can Internet be Shaken up? Message-ID: Dear all, I read this over the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm and think that others can read so that we may be have a debate on the issue. Aaron 'Shake-up' for internet proposed By Darren Waters Technology editor, BBC News website The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to open up the address system are passed. The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed. If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain names while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the net. The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling. Top level domains are currently limited to individual countries, such as .uk (UK) or .it (Italy), as well as to commerce, .com, and to institutional organisations, such as .net, or .org. To get around the restrictions, some companies have used the current system to their own ends. For example, the Polynesia island nation Tuvalu, has leased the use of the .tv address to many television firms. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which acts a sort of regulator for the net, as well as overseeing the domain name system, has been working towards opening up net addresses for the last three years. It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet Dr Paul Twomey, Icann The plan would also allow for the new domain names to be internationalised, and so could be written in scripts for Asian and Arabic languages. Dr Paul Twomey, chief executive of Icann, told BBC News that the proposals would result in the biggest change to the way the internet worked in decades. "The impact of this will be different in different parts of the world. But it will allow groups, communities and business to express their identities online. "Like the United States in the 19th Century, we are in the process of opening up new real estate, new land, and people will go out and claim parts of that land and use it for various reasons they have. "It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet." Arbitration process Hundreds of new domain names could be created by the end of the year, rising to thousands in the future. Icann says any string of letters can be registered as a domain, but there will be an independent arbitration process for people with grounds for objection. The openness of the new system could pave the way for a .xxx domain name, after more than half a decade of wrangling between its backers and Icann. The latest attempt to launch .xxx was rejected by Icann last year on the grounds that approval would put the agency into the position of a content regulator. When asked about the possibility of a .xxx domain name, Dr Twomey repeated only that the new system would be "open to anyone". The move could yet be blocked as the independent arbitration panel can reject domains based on "morality or public order" grounds. Dr Twomey said Icann was still working through how much the application fee to register a domain name will be, but it is expected to be at least several thousand dollars. 'Cost recovery' "We are doing this on a cost recovery basis. We've already spent $10m on this," he said. Individuals will be able to register a domain based on their own name, or any other string of letters, as long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity". While companies will be able to secure domain names based on their intellectual property easily, some domain names could become subject to contention and a bidding war. Dr Twomey said: "If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder." -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 23 17:23:56 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:23:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Can Internet be Shaken up? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DA56@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Aaron: NCUC (the ICANN constituency for civil society organizations) has compiled its opinions about the new ICANN gTLD policy at this link: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/NCUC-stmt.html A more general list of informational resources about the new policy is here: http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/resources ________________________________ From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Can Internet be Shaken up? Dear all, I read this over the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm and think that others can read so that we may be have a debate on the issue. Aaron 'Shake-up' for internet proposed By Darren Waters Technology editor, BBC News website The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to open up the address system are passed. The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed. If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain names while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the net. The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling. Top level domains are currently limited to individual countries, such as .uk (UK) or .it (Italy), as well as to commerce, .com, and to institutional organisations, such as .net, or .org. To get around the restrictions, some companies have used the current system to their own ends. For example, the Polynesia island nation Tuvalu, has leased the use of the .tv address to many television firms. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which acts a sort of regulator for the net, as well as overseeing the domain name system, has been working towards opening up net addresses for the last three years. It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet Dr Paul Twomey, Icann The plan would also allow for the new domain names to be internationalised, and so could be written in scripts for Asian and Arabic languages. Dr Paul Twomey, chief executive of Icann, told BBC News that the proposals would result in the biggest change to the way the internet worked in decades. "The impact of this will be different in different parts of the world. But it will allow groups, communities and business to express their identities online. "Like the United States in the 19th Century, we are in the process of opening up new real estate, new land, and people will go out and claim parts of that land and use it for various reasons they have. "It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet." Arbitration process Hundreds of new domain names could be created by the end of the year, rising to thousands in the future. Icann says any string of letters can be registered as a domain, but there will be an independent arbitration process for people with grounds for objection. The openness of the new system could pave the way for a .xxx domain name, after more than half a decade of wrangling between its backers and Icann. The latest attempt to launch .xxx was rejected by Icann last year on the grounds that approval would put the agency into the position of a content regulator. When asked about the possibility of a .xxx domain name, Dr Twomey repeated only that the new system would be "open to anyone". The move could yet be blocked as the independent arbitration panel can reject domains based on "morality or public order" grounds. Dr Twomey said Icann was still working through how much the application fee to register a domain name will be, but it is expected to be at least several thousand dollars. 'Cost recovery' "We are doing this on a cost recovery basis. We've already spent $10m on this," he said. Individuals will be able to register a domain based on their own name, or any other string of letters, as long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity". While companies will be able to secure domain names based on their intellectual property easily, some domain names could become subject to contention and a bidding war. Dr Twomey said: "If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder." -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 24 12:38:59 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:08:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Marshall Islands internet service disrupted by botnet attack Message-ID: <012701c8d618$cea99ac0$6bfcd040$@net> http://www.circleid.com/posts/cyberattack_marshall_islands_email/ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080624/tc_afp/marshallsinternet_080624104236 > Email communication in the Marshall Islands was paralysed Tuesday after > hackers launched a "zombie" computer attack on the western Pacific > nation's only Internet service provider, AFP reports. The attack > started early Tuesday, in which hackers used zombie computers to flood > country's only Internet service provider with spam emails, causing > a complete shutdown of email traffic into the nation of around 55,000 > people. There are some ideas in http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html that can help, to some extent. 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jun 24 13:03:21 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:03:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Marshall Islands internet service disrupted by botnet attack In-Reply-To: <012701c8d618$cea99ac0$6bfcd040$@net> References: <012701c8d618$cea99ac0$6bfcd040$@net> Message-ID: Thanks for the pathetic info Suresh. I think that the ISP could acquire the Botnet Mitigation Toolkit that could help them deal with that problem. In the mean time aren't there tools to track origins of the attack by locating the IP of the computers. I think this is what is happening when one holds a discussion on a US located website. Your town of origine is tracked at the end of your message without you writing it. It is anothr way of mitigating such attacks. Isn't it? Aaron On 6/24/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/cyberattack_marshall_islands_email/ > http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080624/tc_afp/marshallsinternet_080624104236 > > > Email communication in the Marshall Islands was paralysed Tuesday after > > hackers launched a "zombie" computer attack on the western Pacific > > nation's only Internet service provider, AFP reports. The attack > > started early Tuesday, in which hackers used zombie computers to flood > > country's only Internet service provider with spam emails, causing > > a complete shutdown of email traffic into the nation of around 55,000 > > people. > > There are some ideas in > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html that can > help, to some extent. > > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 24 13:32:12 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:02:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Marshall Islands internet service disrupted by botnet attack In-Reply-To: References: <012701c8d618$cea99ac0$6bfcd040$@net> Message-ID: <014d01c8d620$3de51520$b9af3f60$@net> The IPs are .. like the spirits of the guy in that story about the Gadarene swine, Legion. NSP-SEC type network operator communities can, and do, actively mitigate these. Unfortunately, when a country is connected using a slow and expensive connection (in the pacific islands that means 1..2 satellite providers) it doesn't take much at all to knock them off the net. And its nothing to do with US located websites at all. Most of this activity is from criminals (and they are from different locations - some in eastern europe, some in china, some in south America.. new zealand, the USA.. ) suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] Marshall Islands internet service disrupted > by botnet attack > > Thanks for the pathetic info Suresh. > I think that the ISP could acquire the Botnet Mitigation Toolkit that > could help them deal with that problem. > In the mean time aren't there tools to track origins of the attack by > locating the IP of the computers. > I think this is what is happening when one holds a discussion on a US > located website. Your town of origine is tracked at the end of your > message without you writing it. It is anothr way of mitigating such > attacks. Isn't it? > > Aaron > > On 6/24/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/cyberattack_marshall_islands_email/ > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080624/tc_afp/marshallsinternet_080624104 > 236 > > > > > Email communication in the Marshall Islands was paralysed Tuesday > after > > > hackers launched a "zombie" computer attack on the western Pacific > > > nation's only Internet service provider, AFP reports. The attack > > > started early Tuesday, in which hackers used zombie computers to > flood > > > country's only Internet service provider with spam emails, causing > > > a complete shutdown of email traffic into the nation of around > 55,000 > > > people. > > > > There are some ideas in > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html that > can > > help, to some extent. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jun 24 23:05:15 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] 32nd International Public ICANN Meeting | 22-26 June 2008 Message-ID: 32nd International Public ICANN Meeting | 22-26 June 2008 Main Site http://par.icann.org/ Schedule: At-A-Glance http://par.icann.org/en/schedule Schedule: Detailed Agenda Saterday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_21 Sunday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_22 Monday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_23 Tuesday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_24 Wednesday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_25 Thursday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_26 Friday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_21 - Presentations: http://par.icann.org/en/presentations - Daily Newsletters: http://par.icann.org/en/newsletters - Video http://par.icann.org/en/video Video Feed: http://domaine.info/ http://www.domaine.info/content/view/1449/214/ --- -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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 24 23:13:44 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:13:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [ieg-ml] UNESCO recruits expert to strengthen its WSIS follow-up team Message-ID: <02dc01c8d671$7a7dc350$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> -----Original Message----- From: Floridi, Luciano [mailto:l.floridi at herts.ac.uk] Sent: June 24, 2008 6:32 AM To: iacap-announce at ia-cap.org; inseit at sois.uwm.edu; ieg (ieg-ml at maillist.ox.ac.uk); pi at maillist.ox.ac.uk; gpi at philosophyofinformation.net Subject: [ieg-ml] UNESCO recruits expert to strengthen its WSIS follow-up team http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=27196&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTI ON=201.html UNESCO recruits expert to strengthen its WSIS follow-up team 20-06-2008 (Paris) A post of programme specialist is presently open for recruitment at the Information Society Division of UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector. The major responsibility of this post is to manage UNESCO's follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), including the Organization?s role in the implementation of the WSIS Action Plan. More particularly, the incumbent of the post will have to develop strategic approaches to the implementation of the WSIS Action Plan; monitor UNESCO's role as a facilitator of the multi-stakeholder implementation of six WSIS Action Lines; and coordinate UNESCO's contribution to the overall multi-stakeholder coordination of the Facilitators of the eleven Action Lines. The candidates must have advanced university degree in communication, information or international relations, preferably with orientation towards knowledge societies and five to seven years of working experience in international or intergovernmental organizations active in knowledge society issues. The vacancy notices available on UNESCO's website contain, inter alia, more detailed information on duties and responsibilities, qualifications required, salary and benefits, and on how to apply. When applying for UNESCO vacancies, please only use the online recruitment system at www.unesco.org/employment. Candidates without access to Internet may send a paper application by completing the official UNESCO CV form (available at Headquarters, UNESCO Offices, National Commissions in Member States, or any office of a United Nations Resident Representative) in English or French to: Chief, HRM/RCR, UNESCO 7 place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP France before 19 August 2008, quoting the post number: CI-006. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ieg-ml-unsubscribe at maillist.ox.ac.uk For additional commands, e-mail: ieg-ml-help at maillist.ox.ac.uk !DSPAM:2676,4860fcd5227564075919271! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 24 23:17:10 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] 32nd International Public ICANN Meeting | 22-26 June 2008 Message-ID: 32nd International Public ICANN Meeting | 22-26 June 2008 Main Site http://par.icann.org/ Schedule: At-A-Glance http://par.icann.org/en/schedule Schedule: Detailed Agenda Saterday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_21 Sunday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_22 Monday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_23 Tuesday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_24 Wednesday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_25 Thursday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_26 Friday http://par.icann.org/detail/schedule_27 Interactive - Session Notes http://icannwiki.org/Special:Form/Paris2008SessionNotes - Presentations: http://par.icann.org/en/presentations - Daily Newsletters: http://par.icann.org/en/newsletters - Video http://par.icann.org/en/video Video Feed: http://domaine.info/ http://www.domaine.info/content/view/1449/214/ - Interactive - Session Notes http://icannwiki.org/Special:Form/Paris2008SessionNotes --- -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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 00:09:59 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:09:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial Message-ID: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> I'm not exactly sure how this might fit into the recent discussion concerning the role of the Technical Community in CS but I would commend those interested to a very interesting and useful document prepared/presented by ISOC as a background paper to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf It is a document with which I think, CS would have very little disagreement and very much to support. It might also be noted that the Ministerial was organized as a quad-partite (?) discussion with Member States/Ministers inviting (equal/equivalent) contributions from "the technical community", "the business community" and "Civil Society and Labour". MG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 06:54:43 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:54:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The net's regulators" djf] Message-ID: <034b01c8d6b1$e1513450$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> In case anyone has missed this possible development at the current ICANN meeting in Paris. Any thoughts on the possible implications of this for "Internet Governance"? MG -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: June 25, 2008 3:35 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The net's regulators" djf] ________________________________________ From: Gabe Goldberg [gabe at gabegold.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:52 AM To: David Farber Subject: IP: BBC NEWS | Technology | 'Shake-up' for internet proposed http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm or http://snipurl.com/2oi02 The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to open up the address system are passed. The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed. If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain names while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the net. The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling. ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com !DSPAM:2676,4862225e227565071010528! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 07:12:56 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:12:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The net's regulators" djf] In-Reply-To: <034b01c8d6b1$e1513450$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <034b01c8d6b1$e1513450$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Mike I already posted that piece of info two days ago. May be you skipped consulting the list. Cheers Aaron On 6/25/08, Michael Gurstein wrote: > In case anyone has missed this possible development at the current ICANN > meeting in Paris. > > Any thoughts on the possible implications of this for "Internet Governance"? > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: June 25, 2008 3:35 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The > net's regulators" djf] > > ________________________________________ > From: Gabe Goldberg [gabe at gabegold.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:52 AM > To: David Farber > Subject: IP: BBC NEWS | Technology | 'Shake-up' for internet proposed > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm > or > http://snipurl.com/2oi02 > > The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to open up > the address system are passed. > > The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict rules on > so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed. > > If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain names > while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the net. > > The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > !DSPAM:2676,4862225e227565071010528! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Jun 25 09:47:13 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:47:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Internet be Shaken up? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080625134713.GA25996@sources.org> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:27:05PM +0200, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote a message of 178 lines which said: > I read this over the BBC website Do not forget that not all articles in the press are correct... The french version is specially funny > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm > Dr Paul Twomey, chief executive of Icann, told BBC News that the > proposals would result in the biggest change to the way the internet > worked in decades. May be Twomey said so and may be the journalist invented it. Anyway, it is ridiculous. Opening thousands of TLD will not shake the Internet. > "Like the United States in the 19th Century, There are no Indians to slaughter and to rob, this time, which is a progress. > it is expected to be at least several thousand dollars. And yet the article says that "an individual" can do it. I would be glad to know such an individual, he could pay me a beer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Jun 25 10:04:07 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:04:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080625140407.GB25996@sources.org> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:09:59PM -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > the role of the Technical Community in CS Well, as we know, there is not such thing as "The Technical Community". The paper you mention is ISOC and I fail to see how ISOC could be regarded as "The Technical Community". > a very interesting and useful document prepared/presented by ISOC as > a background paper to the OECD Ministerial in > Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf Yes, good paper. But nothing technical in it, it is 100 % a good political statement. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jun 25 11:04:31 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:04:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <20080625140407.GB25996@sources.org> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080625140407.GB25996@sources.org> Message-ID: <1QF8BWT$5lYIFAd$@perry.co.uk> In message <20080625140407.GB25996 at sources.org>, at 16:04:07 on Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes >Well, as we know, there is not such thing as "The Technical >Community". The paper you mention is ISOC and I fail to see how ISOC >could be regarded as "The Technical Community". ISOC was the event organiser for the technical community, many of whose names were included on the Memorandum presented in Seoul (nb a different document to the background paper). http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/080616pr.shtml -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 10:58:05 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:58:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECDMinisterial In-Reply-To: <20080625140407.GB25996@sources.org> Message-ID: <03b101c8d6d3$f03bbef0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Stephane, The terminology and ascriptions of the document was that of the authors/distributors of the document http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/oecd_20080228.pdf MG -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: June 25, 2008 7:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECDMinisterial On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:09:59PM -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > the role of the Technical Community in CS Well, as we know, there is not such thing as "The Technical Community". The paper you mention is ISOC and I fail to see how ISOC could be regarded as "The Technical Community". > a very interesting and useful document prepared/presented by ISOC as a > background paper to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul. > http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf Yes, good paper. But nothing technical in it, it is 100 % a good political statement. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 10:58:05 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:58:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The net's regulators" djf] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <03a601c8d6d3$e38f9320$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Whoops, sorry... Just working my way backwards too quickly through an avalanche of travel accumulated email. Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Sent: June 25, 2008 4:13 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term "The net's regulators" djf] Mike I already posted that piece of info two days ago. May be you skipped consulting the list. Cheers Aaron On 6/25/08, Michael Gurstein wrote: > In case anyone has missed this possible development at the current > ICANN meeting in Paris. > > Any thoughts on the possible implications of this for "Internet > Governance"? > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: June 25, 2008 3:35 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed - [ I love the term > "The net's regulators" djf] > > ________________________________________ > From: Gabe Goldberg [gabe at gabegold.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:52 AM > To: David Farber > Subject: IP: BBC NEWS | Technology | 'Shake-up' for internet proposed > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm > or > http://snipurl.com/2oi02 > > The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to > open up the address system are passed. > > The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict > rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be > relaxed. > > If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain > names while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the > net. > > The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > !DSPAM:2676,4862225e227565071010528! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 25 11:51:38 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:51:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > I'm not exactly sure how this might fit into the recent discussion > concerning the role of the Technical Community in CS but I would commend > those interested to a very interesting and useful document > prepared/presented by ISOC as a background paper to the OECD Ministerial > in > Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf It is > a > document with which I think, CS would have very little disagreement and > very > much to support. Well now. I don't want to sound crabby, I really don't. But one might ask, if the "technical community" produces documents that we agree mostly with, and if (as some self-identified spokespersons for it insist) they should be considered part of "civil society," then why did ISOC insist on having a separate OECD Stakeholder Forum from civil society? When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to include ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we ended up with silos that segregated the two. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 12:40:54 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:40:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <03c901c8d6e2$3f549580$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Milton, A couple of points: that the Technical Community produces a document with which CS agrees really has little to do with whether there should or should not be a separate Forum (or anything else)... Various groups produce all sorts of documents many of which others agree which doesn't mean that they should merge themselves into a common presentation mode. from my observation the difference in the presenters and the topics of presentation at the TC Forum and the CS Forum were a sufficient argument to justify separate but equal and to a degree complimentary and mutually re-inforcing forums http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/itc_agenda_20080612.pdf http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/ Perhaps a larger lesson there for this discussion? MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: June 25, 2008 8:52 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > I'm not exactly sure how this might fit into the recent discussion > concerning the role of the Technical Community in CS but I would commend > those interested to a very interesting and useful document > prepared/presented by ISOC as a background paper to the OECD Ministerial > in > Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf It is > a > document with which I think, CS would have very little disagreement and > very > much to support. Well now. I don't want to sound crabby, I really don't. But one might ask, if the "technical community" produces documents that we agree mostly with, and if (as some self-identified spokespersons for it insist) they should be considered part of "civil society," then why did ISOC insist on having a separate OECD Stakeholder Forum from civil society? When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to include ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we ended up with silos that segregated the two. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 12:46:05 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:46:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> I'm not exactly sure how this might fit into the recent discussion >> concerning the role of the Technical Community in CS but I would > commend >> those interested to a very interesting and useful document >> prepared/presented by ISOC as a background paper to the OECD > Ministerial >> in >> Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf > It is >> a >> document with which I think, CS would have very little disagreement > and >> very >> much to support. > > Well now. I don't want to sound crabby, I really don't. > > But one might ask, if the "technical community" produces documents that > we agree mostly with, and if (as some self-identified spokespersons for > it insist) they should be considered part of "civil society," then why > did ISOC insist on having a separate OECD Stakeholder Forum from civil > society? Perhaps because of the very rejection of I* orgs as CS we have seen on this list, most recently from the NomCom? > > When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to > include ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we > ended up with silos that segregated the two. So you do consider the existing Internet governance organisations to be CS? -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 26 06:20:13 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:20:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Perhaps because of the very rejection of I* orgs as CS we have seen on > this list, most recently from the NomCom? But that was my point. It is clear that the rejection works in the other direction. I* orgs don't want to be associated with us in any way that is important (i.e., cooperating in the highly visible OECD Forum). > > When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to > > include ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we > > ended up with silos that segregated the two. > > So you do consider the existing Internet governance organisations to be > CS? > If you mean ICANN and RIRs, those are governance organizations. CS needs to approach them either as critics, supporters or participants (or a mix of all 3), but not be acting _on behalf of_ them. They are both "multistakeholder" orgs, of course, so many members and participants are CS. ISOC straddles business and CS. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Jun 26 06:52:18 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:52:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <03c901c8d6e2$3f549580$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <03c901c8d6e2$3f549580$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: very interesting debate in which very little African takes part and yet the problem of technical Community relates to all the countries of the world without exception. For my part these process testify to ignorance of these challenge in Africa and also difficulty which we have to reach the Net with a good flow. In Africa majority of Net using is done within the framework of service and cybercafés. In some countries this use starts to be common in residence, only in capitals or big cities. In services and cybercafés users are for majority ignore name of navigator who allows them to sail on the fabric. Out put the data processing specialists and impassioned technologies others have for only concern of having access to their Web pages. For the case of the data processing specialists they are more occupied making turn their systems, to try to include/understand why the Net spends its time releasing them where has to already allow an acceptable flow to employees. Under such conditions it is difficult to take part in some important debate. Another problem is channel of information moving. How much people and which are the categories of people who have access to information in Africa?Another matter come from numeric illiteracy. debate on " technical community "' concept would deserve to be clearly specified so to extend debate to multiactors engaged in challenge of Net of future. Baudouin 2008/6/25 Michael Gurstein : > Milton, > > A couple of points: > that the Technical Community produces a document with which CS > agrees really has little to do with whether there should or should not be a > separate Forum (or anything else)... Various groups produce all sorts of > documents many of which others agree which doesn't mean that they should > merge themselves into a common presentation mode. > > from my observation the difference in the presenters and the topics > of presentation at the TC Forum and the CS Forum were a sufficient argument > to justify separate but equal and to a degree complimentary and mutually > re-inforcing forums > > http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/itc_agenda_20080612.pdf > > http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/ > > Perhaps a larger lesson there for this discussion? > > MG > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: June 25, 2008 8:52 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document > to OECD Ministerial > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > > I'm not exactly sure how this might fit into the recent discussion > > concerning the role of the Technical Community in CS but I would > commend > > those interested to a very interesting and useful document > > prepared/presented by ISOC as a background paper to the OECD > Ministerial > > in > > Seoul. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf > It is > > a > > document with which I think, CS would have very little disagreement > and > > very > > much to support. > > Well now. I don't want to sound crabby, I really don't. > > But one might ask, if the "technical community" produces documents that we > agree mostly with, and if (as some self-identified spokespersons for it > insist) they should be considered part of "civil society," then why did > ISOC > insist on having a separate OECD Stakeholder Forum from civil society? > > When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to include > ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we ended up with > silos that segregated the two. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 26 08:10:45 2008 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:10:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> Begin forwarded message: > Dear IGC List Participant, > > We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus > as per its charter ... For the record I would like to state again my objection to this procedure and requirement and my belief that it runs counter to the IGC charter. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 26 08:29:21 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:29:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Dear IGC List Participant, > > > We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus as per > its charter ... > > For the record I would like to state again my objection to this procedure > and requirement and my belief that it runs counter to the IGC charter. I second the e-motion. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jun 26 08:53:57 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:53:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> Message-ID: <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Hi, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > I second the e-motion. Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the significance of someone saying they second a motion? Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 26 09:05:38 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:05:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <20080626130538.GC27786@hserus.net> I have replied to this email. And I am on the list. But I am already a member. As avri says this is against the spirit of the caucus. Parminder Jeet Singh [26/06/08 16:32 +0530]: >Dear IGC List Participant, > >We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus as per >its charter ( http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). The >charter defines members as " individuals, acting in personal capacity, who >subscribe to the charter of the caucus". We request you to go through the >charter and if you are willing to subscribe to it, please indicate so in >reply to this email. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Jun 26 09:07:41 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:07:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Avri I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the table. The ball is in your court Aaron On 6/26/08, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > > > I second the e-motion. > > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 26 09:13:16 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:13:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080626131316.GA28059@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [26/06/08 15:07 +0200]: >I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot >just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the >table. >The ball is in your court Anyone who has been on this list for greater than a significant period of time (6 months? 2 months?) - and has actively participated - should be assumed to be a member of this caucus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 26 09:38:14 2008 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:38:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: hi, if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the charter in so doing. there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. a. On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > >> I second the e-motion. > > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jun 26 09:39:18 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:39:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within the charter to do what we have done before - - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the charter. What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe they have consensus - and they might. I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my continuing objection to the decision. I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. I do not see what else I can do. a. On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Dear Avri > > I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot > just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the > table. > The ball is in your court > > Aaron > > On 6/26/08, William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> I second the e-motion. >> >> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is >> the >> significance of someone saying they second a motion? >> >> Bill >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 26 10:05:44 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:05:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within the > charter to do what we have done before - > > - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter. > > What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion > > The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe they have > consensus - and they might. Well, they haven't declared it...yet. > > I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my continuing > objection to the decision. > > I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. to do so would be counter to the bit of the charter quoted below: "As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election." > > I do not see what else I can do. Follow the charter, and if a vote is taken without giving voters the option to "affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote", then move that the vote is invalid, as it violates the charter. I agree it's not going to help the group move forward, but it will help the group stick to it's previously defined rules! -- 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 Thu Jun 26 10:36:42 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:36:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Hi, > >The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within >the charter to do what we have done before - > >- all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot However, "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account." (charter.) >- in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to >the charter. And this would be consistent with the caucus I think. Adam >What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion > >The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe >they have consensus - and they might. > >I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my >continuing objection to the decision. > >I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. > >I do not see what else I can do. > >a. > >On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > >>Dear Avri >> >>I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot >>just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the >>table. >>The ball is in your court >> >>Aaron >> >>On 6/26/08, William Drake wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>>I second the e-motion. >>> >>>Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the >>>significance of someone saying they second a motion? >>> >>>Bill >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >>-- >>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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jun 26 10:49:56 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:49:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <78AAE4BF-BA27-4780-AED5-C8CDC0A49470@psg.com> On 26 Jun 2008, at 16:36, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within >> the charter to do what we have done before - >> >> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > > > However, "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) > months before the election will be given a voter account." (charter.) thank you for the correction. of course it is only those who have been subscribed for 2 months. the coordinators also have lists with that information. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 26 11:43:15 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:43:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MMilton, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Perhaps because of the very rejection of I* orgs as CS we have seen on >> this list, most recently from the NomCom? > > > But that was my point. It is clear that the rejection works in the other > direction. I* orgs don't want to be associated with us in any way that > is important (i.e., cooperating in the highly visible OECD Forum). > Despite your efforts to efforts paint me as a "self-identified spokesperson" for the Internet technical community, I have never claimed this role, only given my opinion on the matter. These organizations all have quite capable spokespeople. It seems to me that they were highly cooperative with the OECD (another example of EC!). I don't know if the OECD is "important" or not, but surely you think that your own organisations IGF workshop (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10) is "important", and your getting lots of love from the technical community on it, so your own efforts seem to deny the point that you were trying to make about rejection. >> > When the OECD process started, some of us in CS tried very hard to >> > include ISOC and the "TC" in the same stakeholder forum. In fact we >> > ended up with silos that segregated the two. >> >> So you do consider the existing Internet governance organisations to > be >> CS? >> > > If you mean ICANN and RIRs, those are governance organizations. and you are now of the view that a governance organisation CANNOT be CS? What about my example of a School Board, composed of volunteers from the community that the school serves, no government involved anywhere, open, transparent election processes, etc. That to me is a CS body that also does "governance". CS needs > to approach them either as critics, supporters or participants (or a mix > of all 3), but not be acting _on behalf of_ them. I can't parse the above. Are you saying that CS can't act on behalf of governance bodies or vice versa? They are both > "multistakeholder" orgs, of course, so many members and participants are > CS. > ISOC straddles business and CS. While it is true that the Internet Society has businesses as members, I must point out that this does not disqualify them from CS. If that were the case, then many on this list could not be counted as CS (except for the fact of self identification). Such self-identification is at the heart of our charter, the NomCom has done away with this self-identification in the case of fulltime staff of "existing Internet governance bodies" in that they can self-identify as much as they want, but they can't have the same rights you have Milton, and I think that's absolute rubbish. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 21:26:05 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:26:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> <20080626131316.GA28059@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4862F02D.34C57494@ix.netcom.com> Suresh and all, Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So does that make me not eledgable? Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [26/06/08 15:07 +0200]: > >I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot > >just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the > >table. > >The ball is in your court > > Anyone who has been on this list for greater than a significant period of > time (6 months? 2 months?) - and has actively participated - should be > assumed to be a member of this caucus. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 26 21:08:40 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:08:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <4862F02D.34C57494@ix.netcom.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <2bd6d7670806260553n2d28fe18r46424b5fa014e405@mail.gmail.com> <20080626131316.GA28059@hserus.net> <4862F02D.34C57494@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20080627010840.GA20311@hserus.net> Yes. Thank God. Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >Suresh and all, > > Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >does that make me not eledgable? > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 21:22:44 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:22:44 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Suresh and all, Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? -----Original Message----- >From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >Yes. Thank God. > >Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>Suresh and all, >> >> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>does that make me not eledgable? >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 21:25:21 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:25:21 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <1753021.1214529921561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Suresh and all, Oy yes, I forgot to add. Not very ethical either... >:( -----Original Message----- >From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >Yes. Thank God. > >Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>Suresh and all, >> >> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>does that make me not eledgable? >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 26 21:44:20 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:44:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20080627014420.GA20660@hserus.net> Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on other forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >Suresh and all, > > Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >>Yes. Thank God. >> >>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>>Suresh and all, >>> >>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>>does that make me not eledgable? >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Regards, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 22:27:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:27:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <32397554.1214533628600.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Suresh and all, I was ask to join. So I did. And please the name calling only shows lack of reason and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I also don't know you. So I will not call you any names like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also do likewise. I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and lack of ethical conviction. -----Original Message----- >From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on other >forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook > >Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? > >Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >>Suresh and all, >> >> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>> >>>Yes. Thank God. >>> >>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>>>Suresh and all, >>>> >>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>>>does that make me not eledgable? >>>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Regards, >> >>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> Abraham Lincoln >> >>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >>=============================================================== >>Updated 1/26/04 >>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Jun 26 22:52:44 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:52:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It Message-ID: <1A32691F-CB92-45B0-98B7-748964EDE3AD@ipjustice.org> 26 June 2008 -- Update on Keep the Core Neutral Campaign ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It Today in Paris the ICANN Board passed the GNSO's controversial recommendations to censor top level domains based on notions of "morality and public order", and broadly defined "community" wishes. However, 2 ICANN board members, law professors Wendy Seltzer (on behalf of the At-Large Internet Users) and Susan Crawford, made very powerful and compelling statements to protect free expression on the top level of the Internet. Hopefully Professor Crawford is right and this harm can be mitigated through narrowly tailored implementation. However, ICANN staff member Kurt Pritz, who is charged with implementing these global prohibitions on expression, said this week in Paris that he strongly favors permitting anyone in the world to object to a new GTLD based on morality and public order and that will be staff's recommendation to the board. Not exactly "narrowly tailored" as Professor Crawford is urging from staff. The domain name applicant's freedom of expression rights are "outside of scope" of this exercise, according to Pritz in a recent new GTLD briefing meeting. Perhaps ICANN staff forgot about the GNSO's Principle G to protect the applicant's freedom of expression rights? Another problem with ICANN staff's implementation plan is to auction- off of the most sought after domains and hold "beauty contests" to decide which applicant "provides more value to the DNS". Pritz said he could not say how "value" is defined in this analysis however. There should be another opportunity for the public to provide comment to ICANN on this proposal. The statements of Professors Seltzer and Crawford are below. Thank you, Robin ----- 26 June 2008 ICANN Board Meeting -- transcript extracts: >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you, Peter. So the at-large, as registrants and as users of domain names, supports the introduction of new gTLDs. Has no interest in delaying that process, but does wish to express its concern about two of the recommendations in the GNSO recommendation set. Specifically, the morality and public order objection and the objection based on community objections. And ALAC and its RALOs, in discussion during this meeting, put together a statement, which I won't read in its entirety, but expressed concern that putting these criteria into the gTLD approval process, even as opportunities for objection, injects ICANN into the business of making morality and public order decisions, or injects that into ICANN's processes in a way that, as ALAC put it, debases the ICANN process. And at-large does not want to see ICANN put into the business of adjudicating or even delegating the adjudication of morality or public order or community support. And so we hope that in implementation, these criteria can be kept sufficiently narrow so that they are both administrable and understandable and so that they do not involve ICANN, the organization, in making, or allowing to be made, determinations about any claim to generally accepted morality principles. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have mixed feelings on this day. I have long supported the entry of new gTLDs into the root. It has seemed to me that it's inappropriate for ICANN to use its monopoly position over giving advice about the existence of new TLDs to create artificial scarcity in TLDs, where there is no natural scarcity, in my view. And that has led to a great deal of pent-up demand for the creation of new TLDs for various reasons, for communities, for new identities, all over the world. And in particular, it is urgent that we create IDN gTLDs for the many language communities around the world that would prefer to have those. The question presented to the board today is a little strange. What we're being asked to respond to is whether the recommendations, the policy recommendations from the GNSO are implementable. And then staff will go on, and if we decide they are, theoretically, implementable, will draft the implementation guidelines for the recommendations made by the GNSO council. There is a lot of important effort to go into those implementation details. And I am signing up to these recommendations on the condition that the implementation work will proceed as planned, and that the board and the community will have an opportunity to comment in detail on that implementation work. In particular, I want to applaud and underline what Wendy Seltzer just said about the morality and public order recommendation, recommendation number 6. Way back when ICANN was formed, that original MOU, which we're now talking about as the JPA, talked of transitioning the management of the Domain Name System to the private sector. And the idea was to figure out whether the private sector had the capability and resources to assume the important responsibilities related to the technical management of the DNS. So that was the question. And so the creation of ICANN, and the question before all of us, was whether this entity would be a good vessel for allowing the private sector to take the lead in the management of the Domain Name System. And, in fact, the white paper in 1998 said that while international organizations may provide specific expertise or act as advisors to the new corporation, the U.S. continues to believe, as do most commenters, that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments should participate in management of Internet names and addresses. Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have, authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs. This wasn't done out of enthusiasm for the free market alone. The idea was also to avoid having sovereigns use the Domain Name System for their own content, control, desires. To avoid having the Domain Name System used as a choke point for content. Recommendation 6, which is the morality and public order recommendation, represents quite a sea change in this approach, because the recommendation is that strings must not be contrary to generally acceptable legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. That's the language of the recommendation. Now, if this is broadly implemented, this recommendation would allow for any government to effectively veto a string that made it uncomfortable. Having a government veto strings is not allowing the private sector to lead. It's allowing sovereigns to censor. Particularly in the absence of straightforward clear limits on what morality and public order means, people will be unwilling to propose even controversial strings and we'll end up with a plain vanilla list of TLDs. So I am unhappy about this recommendation. I am willing to vote for it on the strength of the board's discussion and the staff's undertakings that the standards for this recommendation will be narrowly stated. And on my expectation that the board and the community will have an opportunity to review and approve, or not, the details of those standards. We do have some global norms of morality and public policy. They are very few. One of them is incitement to violent, lawless action. Nobody wants that around the world. A second might be incitement to or promotion of discrimination based on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. And the third might be incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children. Otherwise, the question of morality and public order varies dramatically around the world. It's a diverse, complicated world out there. And it may not be -- it should not be possible to state that there is a single standard of morality and public order around the world. So I am asking that staff come back with an express standard that's constrained to stated norms, like the three I just listed, found and expressly in their national treaties. We need clear lines of adjudication. And I would be content with that kind of implementation. Another concern of mine is with -- with this list of recommendations is recommendation 20 which says, "An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted." It's quite unclear how it's all going to work out, whether any generic applicant could ever win over a community, could ever succeed in contention for a string over a community that says it's a community. And I look forward to many more details on this recommendation as well. And finally -- and I'm sorry to speak at such length but I think it's an important moment. Finally, I'm not happy with the idea that there will be auctions on strings for which there is more than one applicant. And I note that the GNSO's own recommendations on this subject don't mention auctions. And I hope the board will not adopt this approach. My bottom line is I will vote for this set of recommendations, and I hope that the implementation will be sensible. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Susan. -------- More Info: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/icann/gtlds/ http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/ ALAC statement: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? new_gtld_document_recommendation_6_draft_alac_statement -------- IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 26 23:10:52 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:10:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <32397554.1214533628600.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32397554.1214533628600.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20080627031052.GA21988@hserus.net> Invited? So is Joe Baptista (or maybe Jim Fleming) on the list as well? Shudder. Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 19:27 -0700]: >Suresh and all, > > I was ask to join. So I did. > > And please the name calling only shows lack of reason >and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I >also don't know you. So I will not call you any names >like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also >do likewise. > > I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. >Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? > > Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and >otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our >members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than >I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers >you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and >lack of ethical conviction. > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM >>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >>Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on other >>forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook >> >>Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? >> >>Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >>>Suresh and all, >>> >>> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >>>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >>>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>>> >>>>Yes. Thank God. >>>> >>>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>>>>Suresh and all, >>>>> >>>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>>>>does that make me not eledgable? >>>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >>> Abraham Lincoln >>> >>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >>>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >>> >>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >>>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >>>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >>>=============================================================== >>>Updated 1/26/04 >>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >>>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >>>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >>>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Regards, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 00:44:32 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:44:32 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <20124635.1214541872460.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Suresh and all, I have no idea if they are or are not. I rather doubt that Jim is. I have some doubt that Dr. Baptista would be interested, but I cannot, and do not speak for him. Perhaps you can ask Jim or Dr. Baptista for yourself. If you like, I'll be sure to keep them updated? I am sure they would be pleased that you inquired. >:) You shudder? Are you ill, or suffering from some neurological disorder? -----Original Message----- >From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 8:10 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeffrey A. Williams" >Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >Invited? So is Joe Baptista (or maybe Jim Fleming) on the list as well? > >Shudder. > >Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 19:27 -0700]: >>Suresh and all, >> >> I was ask to join. So I did. >> >> And please the name calling only shows lack of reason >>and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I >>also don't know you. So I will not call you any names >>like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also >>do likewise. >> >> I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. >>Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? >> >> Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and >>otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our >>members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than >>I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers >>you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and >>lack of ethical conviction. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM >>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>> >>>Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on other >>>forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook >>> >>>Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? >>> >>>Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >>>>Suresh and all, >>>> >>>> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >>>>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >>>>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >>>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >>>>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>>>> >>>>>Yes. Thank God. >>>>> >>>>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>>>>>Suresh and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>>>>>does that make me not eledgable? >>>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >>>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >>>> Abraham Lincoln >>>> >>>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >>>>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >>>> >>>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >>>>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >>>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >>>>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >>>>=============================================================== >>>>Updated 1/26/04 >>>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >>>>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >>>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >>>>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >>>>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >>>> >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Regards, >> >>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> Abraham Lincoln >> >>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >>=============================================================== >>Updated 1/26/04 >>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 01:04:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:04:02 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Dr. Baptista on ICANN's gTLD decision in Paris: FYI: TLDA-PublicRe: TLD-WG ICANN to vote on Mass Theft of TLDs from INS TLD Holders Message-ID: <13997098.1214543043226.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, As Suresh seem to be interested in Dr. Baptista's participation, the following is an FYI accordingly. See: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01669.html I believe Milton may be particularly interested... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 01:15:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:45:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080627031052.GA21988@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080627051521.70C10A6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> I request that such personal exchanges be kept offlist... this may be taken as an official warning, beyond which co-coordinators may need to stronger measures. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:41 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams > Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Invited? So is Joe Baptista (or maybe Jim Fleming) on the list as well? > > Shudder. > > Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 19:27 -0700]: > >Suresh and all, > > > > I was ask to join. So I did. > > > > And please the name calling only shows lack of reason > >and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I > >also don't know you. So I will not call you any names > >like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also > >do likewise. > > > > I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. > >Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? > > > > Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and > >otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our > >members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than > >I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers > >you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and > >lack of ethical conviction. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM > >>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > , William Drake > > >>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >>Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on > other > >>forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook > >> > >>Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? > >> > >>Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: > >>>Suresh and all, > >>> > >>> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user > >>>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself > >>>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >>>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM > >>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > >>>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > , William Drake > > >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >>>> > >>>>Yes. Thank God. > >>>> > >>>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: > >>>>>Suresh and all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So > >>>>>does that make me not eledgable? > >>>>> > >>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>>For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>> > >>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > >>> Abraham Lincoln > >>> > >>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >>>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >>> > >>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >>>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >>>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >>>=============================================================== > >>>Updated 1/26/04 > >>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >>>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >>>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >>>My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >>> > >>> > >> > >>____________________________________________________________ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >Regards, > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >=============================================================== > >Updated 1/26/04 > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 01:39:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:09:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF agenda - rights and openness issues Message-ID: <20080627053936.A722B6B0D9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All Two issues regarding IGF agenda. One, we had planned a letter to the IGF secretariat/ MAG expressing concern that rights and openness issues were disappearing from IGF’s agenda, inter alia pointing to the fact that these terms do not appear in the main agenda list which is (to quote the latest draft of the program doc at http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) “The MAG proposed the following agenda:  Reaching the Next Billion  Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust  Managing Critical Internet Resources  Taking Stock and the Way Forward  Emerging Issues” We also wish to specifically propose that the main workshop now titled “Fostering security, privacy and openness” be just ‘fostering privacy and openness” especially since there is already another planned main workshop titled “Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime” which is expected to cover all the security issue quite well. Adam had developed this proposal and to quote him last email on the subject “For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into the debate the follows in the afternoon.” There has been no opposition to this proposal and I take it that we agree to write a letter on these lines to the Secretariat/ MAG. Can someone please volunteer to draft the letter and share with us? I continue to be bothered that we are not able to agree to write to also write that ‘ensuring/ achieving universal access’ be the main theme one instead of ‘reaching the next billion’ even after all the discussion which happened on this topic on this list. But for the present this subject is being separated from that discussed above. I will take up the second of the two issues I planned to discus in the following email. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 01:58:52 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:58:52 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <11829681.1214546332417.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Parminder and all, Thank you. I have hope that Suresh will and can be much more civil and considerate in the near future. I am deeply sorry that seeking to personally attack and/or bait me appeared to be so important to Suresh. I am always interested in anyones views however they desire to express them without prejudice. -----Original Message----- >From: Parminder >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 10:15 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' , "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" >Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > > >I request that such personal exchanges be kept offlist... this may be taken >as an official warning, beyond which co-coordinators may need to stronger >measures. Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:41 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams >> Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> Invited? So is Joe Baptista (or maybe Jim Fleming) on the list as well? >> >> Shudder. >> >> Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 19:27 -0700]: >> >Suresh and all, >> > >> > I was ask to join. So I did. >> > >> > And please the name calling only shows lack of reason >> >and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I >> >also don't know you. So I will not call you any names >> >like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also >> >do likewise. >> > >> > I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. >> >Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? >> > >> > Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and >> >otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our >> >members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than >> >I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers >> >you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and >> >lack of ethical conviction. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM >> >>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> , William Drake >> >> >>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> >> >>Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on >> other >> >>forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook >> >> >> >>Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? >> >> >> >>Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >> >>>Suresh and all, >> >>> >> >>> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >> >>>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >> >>>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? >> >>> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >> >>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >>>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >> >>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> >>>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> , William Drake >> >> >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >>>> >> >>>>Yes. Thank God. >> >>>> >> >>>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >> >>>>>Suresh and all, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >> >>>>>does that make me not eledgable? >> >>>>> >> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >> >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>>> >> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>> >> >>>Regards, >> >>> >> >>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> >>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> >>> Abraham Lincoln >> >>> >> >>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> >>>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >>> >> >>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> >>>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> >>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> >>>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> >>>=============================================================== >> >>>Updated 1/26/04 >> >>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> >>>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> >>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> >>>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> >>>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> > Abraham Lincoln >> > >> >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> > >> >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> >=============================================================== >> >Updated 1/26/04 >> >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> >My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >____________________________________________________________ >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 02:15:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:45:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: the rights workshop In-Reply-To: <20080627053936.A722B6B0D9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080627061603.DD4576B1A6@smtp1.electricembers.net> This is regarding the workshop proposed by the IGC on ‘A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance’. The IGC working group on this workshop has an f-t-f meeting at Seoul last week, and also intensive online interactions with some other rights groups that are co-sponsoring this workshop. (I will refer to this group as Bill of Rights or BoR group subsequently.) Karen who heads the IGC WG is unable to devote time this week, and it is for that reason I am reporting on the WG’s work. She will be back to lead the group next week. The WG is of the view that the IGC workshop takes from the overall theme of IGF, Hyderabad, ‘Internet for All’, and do a workshop focused on interrogating the ‘access’ issue from a rights perspective, and name the workshop as ‘Internet for All – Exploring A Rights-based Approach’. Unlike the earlier proposal we will not be examining issues regarding other rights like FoE, privacy etc in this workshop… the BoR group has another workshop which is about mainstreaming the rights agenda in IGF/ DCs, and the full gamut of rights will be examined etc in this workshop. Some of us from the IGC are working with the BoR group on this. I would also like to see IGC as a group supports that workshop. More on that workshop can be expected soon from Lisa….. The IGC workshop proposal, with the new proposed name ‘Internet for All – Exploring a Rights-based Approach’ will have to be re-written to suit this new approach. This will be done over the weekend. We need to submit the revised proposal by the 30ththis. However if more time is needed for discussion within IGC on this issue we may try to seek an extra week. Meanwhile inputs and comments are welcome. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF agenda - rights and openness issues Hi All Two issues regarding IGF agenda. One, we had planned a letter to the IGF secretariat/ MAG expressing concern that rights and openness issues were disappearing from IGF’s agenda, inter alia pointing to the fact that these terms do not appear in the main agenda list which is (to quote the latest draft of the program doc at http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) Reaching“The MAG proposed the following agenda: Managing Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust the Next Billion Emerging Taking Stock and the Way Forward Critical Internet Resources Issues” We also wish to specifically propose that the main workshop now titled “Fostering security, privacy and openness” be just ‘fostering privacy and openness” especially since there is already another planned main workshop titled “Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime” which is expected to cover all the security issue quite well. Adam had developed this proposal and to quote him last email on the subject “For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into the debate the follows in the afternoon.” There has been no opposition to this proposal and I take it that we agree to write a letter on these lines to the Secretariat/ MAG. Can someone please volunteer to draft the letter and share with us? I continue to be bothered that we are not able to agree to write to also write that ‘ensuring/ achieving universal access’ be the main theme one instead of ‘reaching the next billion’ even after all the discussion which happened on this topic on this list. But for the present this subject is being separated from that discussed above. I will take up the second of the two issues I planned to discus in the following email. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 04:13:10 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:13:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> Message-ID: <48634F95.10023FAF@ix.netcom.com> Avir and all, Not sure on the charter provision. But why would anyone want to object to open and transparent participation? Avri Doria wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> Dear IGC List Participant, >> >> We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus >> as per its charter ... > > For the record I would like to state again my objection to this > procedure and requirement and my belief that it runs counter to the > IGC charter. a. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 27 02:24:42 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:24:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <20080627062442.GB29140@hserus.net> Oh well. This list is mostly ineffectual enough that having him, joe baptista, jim fleming and various others wont make much of a difference. At leat it will provide some entertainment value superior to your 20 page emails (which besides being pointless and naive attempts at playing politics are a waste of time) Theres little point in my continuing here anyway - I dont see any consensus emerging, or this caucus coming up with any remotely useful outcomes. Not with you, Milton and various others around anyway. Goodbye. Parminder [27/06/08 10:45 +0530]: > > > >I request that such personal exchanges be kept offlist... this may be taken >as an official warning, beyond which co-coordinators may need to stronger >measures. Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:41 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams >> Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> Invited? So is Joe Baptista (or maybe Jim Fleming) on the list as well? >> >> Shudder. >> >> Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 19:27 -0700]: >> >Suresh and all, >> > >> > I was ask to join. So I did. >> > >> > And please the name calling only shows lack of reason >> >and ethical behavior. You don't know me at all, and I >> >also don't know you. So I will not call you any names >> >like a adolesent child and would ask kindly you also >> >do likewise. >> > >> > I am a IT/Data security professional with a law degree. >> >Admittedly that is an odd combination, so what? >> > >> > Sure I have been moderated, kicked off, ask to return, and >> >otherwise personally abused on a few forums for stating my and/or our >> >members views. If that is a justification for such actions, than >> >I take those abuses/actions with reluctant pride. If that bothers >> >you or anyone, truly I am sorry for their/uour short sightedness and >> >lack of ethical conviction. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:44 PM >> >>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> , William Drake >> >> >>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> >> >>Me, that statement was because I know your former history getting on >> other >> >>forums and then getting kicked off for being a net kook >> >> >> >>Why, by the way, did you pick this forum to infest? >> >> >> >>Jeffrey A. Williams [26/06/08 18:22 -0700]: >> >>>Suresh and all, >> >>> >> >>> Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user >> >>>friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself >> >>>to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? >> >>> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >> >>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >>>>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >> >>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> >>>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> , William Drake >> >> >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >>>> >> >>>>Yes. Thank God. >> >>>> >> >>>>Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >> >>>>>Suresh and all, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >> >>>>>does that make me not eledgable? >> >>>>> >> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >> >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>>> >> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>> >> >>>Regards, >> >>> >> >>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> >>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> >>> Abraham Lincoln >> >>> >> >>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> >>>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >>> >> >>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> >>>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> >>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> >>>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> >>>=============================================================== >> >>>Updated 1/26/04 >> >>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> >>>div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> >>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> >>>jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> >>>My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> > Abraham Lincoln >> > >> >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> > >> >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> >=============================================================== >> >Updated 1/26/04 >> >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> >My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> >____________________________________________________________ >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | suresh at hserus.net | gpg EDEDEFB9 email sturmbahnfuehrer | lower middle class unix sysadmin ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 04:26:22 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:26:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Membership list References: <20080626130538.GC27786@hserus.net> Message-ID: <486352AE.7F62E489@ix.netcom.com> Suresh and all, After reading the charter very closely and now have a second legal opinion as well, I cannot abide or recognize any provision in the Charter that upholds Avri's contention and/or objection as to the "Spirit" or word of the caucus charter. Further and with great sadness, as Avri is the Chair of ICANN's GNSO I must in all good faith express my concern as to the ethical grounds to consideration of openness and Transparency principal of ICANN, the GNSO and bearing on those whom hold such principals in high regard in ICANN's own Ethics statement made in Paris meeting today. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I have replied to this email. And I am on the list. > > But I am already a member. As avri says this is against the spirit of the > caucus. > > Parminder Jeet Singh [26/06/08 16:32 +0530]: > >Dear IGC List Participant, > > > >We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus as per > >its charter ( http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ). The > >charter defines members as " individuals, acting in personal capacity, who > >subscribe to the charter of the caucus". We request you to go through the > >charter and if you are willing to subscribe to it, please indicate so in > >reply to this email. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jun 27 03:47:06 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:47:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> Message-ID: <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> Hi, now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be members of this caucus - not the other way around. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Dear IGC List Participant, >> >> We are preparing a list of members of the Internet Governance Caucus >> as per its charter ... > > For the record I would like to state again my objection to this > procedure and requirement and my belief that it runs counter to the IGC > charter. > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 03:06:09 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:06:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be > members of this caucus - not the other way around. Precisely, it's nothing to do with transparency and openness (or lack thereof on Avri's part. She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act as per the charter. Forcing us to "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed the charter. If I, for one, am disenfranchised because I insist on following the charter that will be the second time in as many months that rights of members have been abridged. A worrying trend. Any vote that does not follow the charter will most certainly be invalid. Members resign. Why? political correctness? Spartacus Youth League! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 04:29:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:59:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627082932.9B59DA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Avri Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because once again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process that all organizations do... This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a group of such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to single member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the charter' come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few months mainly because of this one issue. (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological position, but there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say that you agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.) Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales.... > The list discussed this before. Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I have posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a few times now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view, ended with enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed. For instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others, clearly asked me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his posting in the current discussion means, in that context)................ I think it is adequate, and within > the charter to do what we have done before - > > - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter. Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last time. This only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have forgotten because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times now on this list. There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text on the ballot read - "By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus." "If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote." I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And we have agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as a list participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done before". Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous discussions you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say that this is what we have "done before". Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had never agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter'. So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done is that whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single step along with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing to the charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list for at least 2 months). There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I don't know why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like 'principles' issue. It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the same step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots along.... I will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give their reason as well, while responding to my reasons... (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as well, and it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at present... (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must agree that they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part and just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a specific email about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the respondent clearly knows what she is responding to. (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just because they do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership because of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co-coordinators elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose membership? (I have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere was it mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain) membership, right. Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when there is no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first agree that she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since the coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now and is convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this process. But, still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two step process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is gained by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion of subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am doing... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hi, > > The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within > the charter to do what we have done before - > > - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter. > > What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion > > The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe > they have consensus - and they might. > > I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my continuing > objection to the decision. > > I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. > > I do not see what else I can do. > > a. > > On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > > Dear Avri > > > > I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot > > just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the > > table. > > The ball is in your court > > > > Aaron > > > > On 6/26/08, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > >> > >>> I second the e-motion. > >> > >> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is > >> the > >> significance of someone saying they second a motion? > >> > >> Bill > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at peter-dambier.de Fri Jun 27 04:31:25 2008 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:31:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4864A55D.9040603@peter-dambier.de> Hi Jeff, this will be interesting in deed. I wonder if lurkers like me ... Cheers Peter Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Suresh and all, > > Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user > friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself > to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM >> To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> Yes. Thank God. >> >> Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: >>> Suresh and all, >>> >>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So >>> does that make me not eledgable? >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 04:32:46 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:32:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: the rights workshop In-Reply-To: <20080627061603.DD4576B1A6@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080627053936.A722B6B0D9@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080627061603.DD4576B1A6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: In fact, the preceding topic and the second topic do not have the same range: -first topic concern of first order on the relevance of IGF with short, average and long run; -second topic has like problematic to explore opportunities offered by Internet and its advantages . What we want exactly? Baudouin 2008/6/27 Parminder : > This is regarding the workshop proposed by the IGC on 'A Rights Agenda > for Internet Governance'. The IGC working group on this workshop has an > f-t-f meeting at Seoul last week, and also intensive online interactions > with some other rights groups that are co-sponsoring this workshop. (I will > refer to this group as Bill of Rights or BoR group subsequently.) Karen who > heads the IGC WG is unable to devote time this week, and it is for that > reason I am reporting on the WG's work. She will be back to lead the group > next week. > > > > The WG is of the view that the IGC workshop takes from the overall theme of > IGF, Hyderabad, 'Internet for All', and do a workshop focused on > interrogating the 'access' issue from a rights perspective, and name the > workshop as 'Internet for All – Exploring A Rights-based Approach'. Unlike > the earlier proposal we will not be examining issues regarding other rights > like FoE, privacy etc in this workshop… the BoR group has another workshop > which is about mainstreaming the rights agenda in IGF/ DCs, and the full > gamut of rights will be examined etc in this workshop. Some of us from the > IGC are working with the BoR group on this. I would also like to see IGC as > a group supports that workshop. More on that workshop can be expected soon > from Lisa….. > > > > The IGC workshop proposal, with the new proposed name 'Internet for All – > Exploring a Rights-based Approach' will have to be re-written to suit this > new approach. This will be done over the weekend. We need to submit the > revised proposal by the 30ththis. However if more time is needed for > discussion within IGC on this issue we may try to seek an extra week. > > > > Meanwhile inputs and comments are welcome. > > > > Parminder > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Friday, June 27, 2008 11:09 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] IGF agenda - rights and openness issues > > > > Hi All > > > > Two issues regarding IGF agenda. > > > > One, we had planned a letter to the IGF secretariat/ MAG expressing concern > that rights and openness issues were disappearing from IGF's agenda, inter > alia pointing to the fact that these terms do not appear in the main agenda > list which is (to quote the latest draft of the program doc at > http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) > > > > Reaching"The MAG proposed the following agenda: Managing Promoting > Cyber-Security and Trust the Next Billion Emerging Taking Stock and the > Way Forward Critical Internet Resources Issues" > > > > We also wish to specifically propose that the main workshop now titled "Fostering > security, privacy and openness" be just 'fostering privacy and openness" > especially since there is already another planned main workshop titled "Are > we losing the battle against cyber-crime" which is expected to cover all the > security issue quite well. > > > > Adam had developed this proposal and to quote him last email on the subject > > > > > "For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something > along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" > > is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting > Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary > document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger > emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the > second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and > openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, > which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course > security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as > concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will > be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a > balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into > the debate the follows in the afternoon." > > > > > > There has been no opposition to this proposal and I take it that we agree > to write a letter on these lines to the Secretariat/ MAG. Can someone please > volunteer to draft the letter and share with us? > > > > I continue to be bothered that we are not able to agree to write to also > write that 'ensuring/ achieving universal access' be the main theme one > instead of 'reaching the next billion' even after all the discussion which > happened on this topic on this list. But for the present this subject is > being separated from that discussed above. > > > > I will take up the second of the two issues I planned to discus in the > following email. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 04:36:38 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:06:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627083653.DA4A26B142@smtp1.electricembers.net> > if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > charter in so doing. > there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not vote in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because of that? Are they non-members now?? These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators election), Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which are clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > hi, > > if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > charter in so doing. > there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > > > a. > > On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > > > >> I second the e-motion. > > > > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the > > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > > > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 04:41:00 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:11:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080627083653.DA4A26B142@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080627083653.DA4A26B142@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of my sign up? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India. On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >> charter in so doing. >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > > > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not vote > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because of > that? Are they non-members now?? > > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators election), > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... > > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which are > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? > > Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> hi, >> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >> charter in so doing. >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. >> >> >> a. >> >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> > >> >> I second the e-motion. >> > >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is the >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? >> > >> > Bill >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 05:00:32 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:30:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: the rights workshop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627090043.BE3026B2B1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Baudouin You are right, the two issues are of a different order, and please read them so. My first email was about the IGC writing to the IGF secretariat seeking to influence its overall agenda as it is appearing the IGF program document. The second email is about a specific workshop that IGC is sponsoring which is now proposed to be ‘Internet for All – Exploring a Rights-based Approach’. Parminder _____ From: BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] RE: the rights workshop In fact, the preceding topic and the second topic do not have the same range: -first topic concern of first order on the relevance of IGF with short, average and long run; -second topic has like problematic to explore opportunities offered by Internet and its advantages . What we want exactly? Baudouin 2008/6/27 Parminder : This is regarding the workshop proposed by the IGC on 'A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance'. The IGC working group on this workshop has an f-t-f meeting at Seoul last week, and also intensive online interactions with some other rights groups that are co-sponsoring this workshop. (I will refer to this group as Bill of Rights or BoR group subsequently.) Karen who heads the IGC WG is unable to devote time this week, and it is for that reason I am reporting on the WG's work. She will be back to lead the group next week. The WG is of the view that the IGC workshop takes from the overall theme of IGF, Hyderabad, 'Internet for All', and do a workshop focused on interrogating the 'access' issue from a rights perspective, and name the workshop as 'Internet for All – Exploring A Rights-based Approach'. Unlike the earlier proposal we will not be examining issues regarding other rights like FoE, privacy etc in this workshop the BoR group has another workshop which is about mainstreaming the rights agenda in IGF/ DCs, and the full gamut of rights will be examined etc in this workshop. Some of us from the IGC are working with the BoR group on this. I would also like to see IGC as a group supports that workshop. More on that workshop can be expected soon from Lisa .. The IGC workshop proposal, with the new proposed name 'Internet for All – Exploring a Rights-based Approach' will have to be re-written to suit this new approach. This will be done over the weekend. We need to submit the revised proposal by the 30ththis. However if more time is needed for discussion within IGC on this issue we may try to seek an extra week. Meanwhile inputs and comments are welcome. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF agenda - rights and openness issues Hi All Two issues regarding IGF agenda. One, we had planned a letter to the IGF secretariat/ MAG expressing concern that rights and openness issues were disappearing from IGF's agenda, inter alia pointing to the fact that these terms do not appear in the main agenda list which is (to quote the latest draft of the program doc at http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) "The MAG proposed the following agenda:lReaching lManaging the Next BillionlPromoting Cyber-Security and Trust Taking StocklEmerging Critical Internet Resourcesland the Way Forward Issues" We also wish to specifically propose that the main workshop now titled "Fostering security, privacy and openness" be just 'fostering privacy and openness" especially since there is already another planned main workshop titled "Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime" which is expected to cover all the security issue quite well. Adam had developed this proposal and to quote him last email on the subject "For the first, I suggest we write to the secretariat saying something along the lines of... we are concerned that the theme "openness" is in danger of being lost in the session currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust". Based the February consultation, summary document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would be maintained in this session. We suggest the second part of the session, currently "Fostering security, privacy and openness" focus more on "fostering privacy and openness" than on security, which will be the prime subject of the first part of the session. Of course security will be an important element of the second workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness and preservation of fundamental rights will be an important element of the first workshop. What we are suggesting is a balance between these issues across the two workshops, and therefore into the debate the follows in the afternoon." There has been no opposition to this proposal and I take it that we agree to write a letter on these lines to the Secretariat/ MAG. Can someone please volunteer to draft the letter and share with us? I continue to be bothered that we are not able to agree to write to also write that 'ensuring/ achieving universal access' be the main theme one instead of 'reaching the next billion' even after all the discussion which happened on this topic on this list. But for the present this subject is being separated from that discussed above. I will take up the second of the two issues I planned to discus in the following email. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 05:13:04 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:43:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627091313.60B19E35B9@smtp3.electricembers.net> McTim >She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act as >per the charter. You do not mention the issue of 'subscribing to the charter', which is the criterion of membership as per the charter, at all here. Interestingly, this was a strong refrain throughout your discussions on the IGIs and nomcom issue... you kept pledging by 'all those who subscribe to the charter'..... >Forcing us to > "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed > the charter. When did you sign the charter - by voting for it? Well, unfortunately while we have the list of all those who voted during the charter vote, there is no break up of who voted for and who against. Should I take all those who voting during this vote (even those who opposed it) as having signed the charter ? I can, but is this your view. Or did you sign by voting in the coordinators elections, but then do those who didn't vote become non members (see my last email) Also, should the membership list be frozen after charter and co-coordinator votes, or can I again ask all those on the list if they are willing to subscribe and become members.... Since we do not have a clear members list what exactly is so evil in saying, well lets have one, and things will be simpler from there on. Specifically, do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the charter. Or is it that you find this as another good issue to oppose something I am trying to do and enter into endless arguments. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi, > > now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > > Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to > be > > members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > Precisely, it's nothing to do with transparency and openness (or lack > thereof on Avri's part. She is simply explaining that we affirm > membership during the voting act as per the charter. Forcing us to > "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed > the charter. If I, for one, am disenfranchised because I insist on > following the charter that will be the second time in as many months > that rights of members have been abridged. A worrying trend. > > Any vote that does not follow the charter will most certainly be invalid. > > > Members resign. Why? > political correctness? > Spartacus Youth League! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jun 27 05:14:15 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:14:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080627082932.9B59DA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080627082932.9B59DA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <6C518CC4-0779-4AC0-A850-E4D257E97769@psg.com> hi, I am not saying you cannot hold elections just because I am making a personal protest. I am saying that I wish to log my protest. I see absolutely no reason why my protest should stop you from doing what you think its right - as long you do have the consensus of the IGC. To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair - especially since though i disagree with your practice, I have been helping you in the background by providing all the information and assistance which you have requested. I do believe I still have the freedom of expression on this list to make my position clear - as long as I am not breaking the mandates of netiquette as defined in the charter. And if I am breaking them please warn me. I understand that not signing the charter before being put on the voter's list as you seem to believe is required by the nature of the organization may mean that I am no longer a voting caucus member and only a list member. While I would consider that unfortunately, I can live with it if it is the case. thank you a. On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:29, Parminder wrote: > > Avri > > Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into > arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because > once > again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process > that all > organizations do... > > This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a > group of > such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to > single > member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the > charter' > come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few > months mainly because of this one issue. > > (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological > position, but > there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say > that you > agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask > everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.) > > Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales.... > >> The list discussed this before. > > Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I > have > posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a > few times > now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view, > ended with > enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed. > For > instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others, > clearly asked > me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his > posting in > the current discussion means, in that context)................ > > I think it is adequate, and within >> the charter to do what we have done before - >> >> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot >> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to >> the >> charter. > > Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last > time. This > only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have > forgotten > because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times > now on > this list. > > There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text > on the > ballot read - > > "By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society > particpant > of the Internet Governance Caucus." "If you cannot so affirm, please > do not > vote." > > I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And > we have > agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as > a list > participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please > explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done > before". > > Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous > discussions > you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they > subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say > that this > is what we have "done before". > > Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had > never > agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > > charter'. > > So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done > is that > whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single > step along > with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing > to the > charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list > for at > least 2 months). > > There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I > don't know > why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like > 'principles' > issue. > > It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the > same > step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have > preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots > along.... I > will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give > their > reason as well, while responding to my reasons... > > (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as > well, and > it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at > present... > > > (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must > agree that > they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part > and > just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a > specific email > about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the > respondent > clearly knows what she is responding to. > > (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just > because they > do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership > because > of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co- > coordinators > elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose > membership? (I > have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere > was it > mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain) > membership, right. > > Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this > simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when > there is > no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first > agree that > she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since > the > coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now > and is > convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this > process. But, > still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two > step > process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is > gained > by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion > of > subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am > doing... > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> Hi, >> >> The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within >> the charter to do what we have done before - >> >> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot >> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to >> the >> charter. >> >> What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion >> >> The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe >> they have consensus - and they might. >> >> I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my >> continuing >> objection to the decision. >> >> I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. >> >> I do not see what else I can do. >> >> a. >> >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri >>> >>> I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You >>> cannot >>> just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the >>> table. >>> The ball is in your court >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> On 6/26/08, William Drake >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>>> I second the e-motion. >>>> >>>> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is >>>> the >>>> significance of someone saying they second a motion? >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 05:21:45 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:51:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627092155.020C56B299@smtp1.electricembers.net> Sivasubramanian, Yes, you can become a member of the IGC even on the first day of your subscription to the list by subscribing to the IGC charter (pl read the charter at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), and accepting membership. However, you do not have voting rights for the first 60 days of your subscription to the list. After that, if you have already accepted membership, you will AUTOMATICALLY be considered to have full voting rights. I am happy to clarify further if needed to the new participants on this list. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:11 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hello Parminder, > > Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be > included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get > to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of > my sign up? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India. > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > >> charter in so doing. > >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > > > > > > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not > vote > > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because > of > > that? Are they non-members now?? > > > > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators > election), > > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... > > > > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per > > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which > are > > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >> hi, > >> > >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > >> charter in so doing. > >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > >> > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > >> > > >> >> I second the e-motion. > >> > > >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is > the > >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > >> > > >> > Bill > >> > > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 05:31:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:31:37 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: <30376546.1214559097261.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri and all, I find it a bit unfortunate that Avri or anyone else should need to explain themselves in the Way Avir has below in regards to voting or non-voting participant. Seems like shades of the ISOC some years ago when I was still a member and the charter changed to where only "Certain" members could vote in any capacity. I than and there resigned my membership under protest to the ISOC. If the IGC is not going to recognize independent individuals of whatever capacity, background, or condition of servitude as able and viable members in full status, than how can the IGC purport to be open and transparent? I don't believe it can. Ergo discussing such principals by those "Special" members of the IGC is hypocritical in and of itself accordingly. Avri, FWIW, I hope your as well as all IGC participants are able to vote and I for one, welcome your comments, and ideas whatever they may be, even if I, or any one else agrees or disagrees with them. And I hope you will kindly extend the same consideration to all participants without prejudice or any other reason. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Jun 27, 2008 2:14 AM >To: Parminder >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >hi, > >I am not saying you cannot hold elections just because I am making a >personal protest. I am saying that I wish to log my protest. I see >absolutely no reason why my protest should stop you from doing what >you think its right - as long you do have the consensus of the IGC. >To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair - >especially since though i disagree with your practice, I have been >helping you in the background by providing all the information and >assistance which you have requested. > >I do believe I still have the freedom of expression on this list to >make my position clear - as long as I am not breaking the mandates of >netiquette as defined in the charter. And if I am breaking them >please warn me. > >I understand that not signing the charter before being put on the >voter's list as you seem to believe is required by the nature of the >organization may mean that I am no longer a voting caucus member and >only a list member. While I would consider that unfortunately, I can >live with it if it is the case. > >thank you >a. > > > >On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:29, Parminder wrote: > >> >> Avri >> >> Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into >> arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because >> once >> again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process >> that all >> organizations do... >> >> This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a >> group of >> such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to >> single >> member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the >> charter' >> come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few >> months mainly because of this one issue. >> >> (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological >> position, but >> there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say >> that you >> agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask >> everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.) >> >> Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales.... >> >>> The list discussed this before. >> >> Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I >> have >> posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a >> few times >> now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view, >> ended with >> enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed. >> For >> instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others, >> clearly asked >> me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his >> posting in >> the current discussion means, in that context)................ >> >> I think it is adequate, and within >>> the charter to do what we have done before - >>> >>> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot >>> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to >>> the >>> charter. >> >> Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last >> time. This >> only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have >> forgotten >> because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times >> now on >> this list. >> >> There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text >> on the >> ballot read - >> >> "By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society >> particpant >> of the Internet Governance Caucus." "If you cannot so affirm, please >> do not >> vote." >> >> I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And >> we have >> agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as >> a list >> participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please >> explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done >> before". >> >> Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous >> discussions >> you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they >> subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say >> that this >> is what we have "done before". >> >> Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had >> never >> agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > >> charter'. >> >> So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done >> is that >> whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single >> step along >> with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing >> to the >> charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list >> for at >> least 2 months). >> >> There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I >> don't know >> why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like >> 'principles' >> issue. >> >> It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the >> same >> step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have >> preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots >> along.... I >> will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give >> their >> reason as well, while responding to my reasons... >> >> (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as >> well, and >> it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at >> present... >> >> >> (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must >> agree that >> they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part >> and >> just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a >> specific email >> about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the >> respondent >> clearly knows what she is responding to. >> >> (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just >> because they >> do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership >> because >> of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co- >> coordinators >> elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose >> membership? (I >> have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere >> was it >> mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain) >> membership, right. >> >> Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this >> simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when >> there is >> no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first >> agree that >> she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since >> the >> coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now >> and is >> convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this >> process. But, >> still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two >> step >> process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is >> gained >> by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion >> of >> subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am >> doing... >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM >>> To: Governance Caucus >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within >>> the charter to do what we have done before - >>> >>> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot >>> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to >>> the >>> charter. >>> >>> What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion >>> >>> The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe >>> they have consensus - and they might. >>> >>> I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my >>> continuing >>> objection to the decision. >>> >>> I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. >>> >>> I do not see what else I can do. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Avri >>>> >>>> I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You >>>> cannot >>>> just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the >>>> table. >>>> The ball is in your court >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> On 6/26/08, William Drake >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I second the e-motion. >>>>> >>>>> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is >>>>> the >>>>> significance of someone saying they second a motion? >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 05:41:49 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:11:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <6C518CC4-0779-4AC0-A850-E4D257E97769@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080627094200.D92A0A6CC7@smtp2.electricembers.net> Avri > To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair.. Yes, it would be unfair, and I am not doing it... I am just blaming the 'issue' and the loops it gets into .... I know your position on this and we have discussed it online and offline before, and you have been consistent, so I have no problem with it.. but some others have been less consistent and have spoken perhaps without considering what impact it has on an ongoing IGC process, which was declared a few days back, and has been declared many times before. > I do believe I still have the freedom of expression on this list to > make my position clear - as long as I am not breaking the mandates of > netiquette as defined in the charter. Of course you have the absolute right... my mail spoke more about what you said as having done before, which I insisted was not what was done before and that it confused the members... > I understand that not signing the charter before being put on the > voter's list as you seem to believe is required by the nature of the > organization may mean that I am no longer a voting caucus member and > only a list member. While I would consider that unfortunately, I can > live with it if it is the case. > > thank you > a. You know that I think that is most unfortunate. But what are my options. I am convinced that a certain process is right and in the best interests of the group. I think there is a good enough consensus behind it. The fact that I think your position is so unfortunate is why I have kept on stalling this process to see which way we can go ahead without reaching any unfortunate breaking point. Since you wrote most of the charter I am ready to make an exception in your case and put your name automatically on the members list, and send a ballot. I.e. if no one objects... But I am not sure what would I do if another person asked for the same exception, and then another. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:44 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > hi, > > I am not saying you cannot hold elections just because I am making a > personal protest. I am saying that I wish to log my protest. I see > absolutely no reason why my protest should stop you from doing what > you think its right - as long you do have the consensus of the IGC. > To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair - > especially since though i disagree with your practice, I have been > helping you in the background by providing all the information and > assistance which you have requested. > > I do believe I still have the freedom of expression on this list to > make my position clear - as long as I am not breaking the mandates of > netiquette as defined in the charter. And if I am breaking them > please warn me. > > I understand that not signing the charter before being put on the > voter's list as you seem to believe is required by the nature of the > organization may mean that I am no longer a voting caucus member and > only a list member. While I would consider that unfortunately, I can > live with it if it is the case. > > thank you > a. > > > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:29, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Avri > > > > Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into > > arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because > > once > > again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process > > that all > > organizations do... > > > > This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a > > group of > > such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to > > single > > member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the > > charter' > > come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few > > months mainly because of this one issue. > > > > (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological > > position, but > > there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say > > that you > > agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask > > everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.) > > > > Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales.... > > > >> The list discussed this before. > > > > Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I > > have > > posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a > > few times > > now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view, > > ended with > > enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed. > > For > > instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others, > > clearly asked > > me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his > > posting in > > the current discussion means, in that context)................ > > > > I think it is adequate, and within > >> the charter to do what we have done before - > >> > >> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > >> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to > >> the > >> charter. > > > > Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last > > time. This > > only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have > > forgotten > > because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times > > now on > > this list. > > > > There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text > > on the > > ballot read - > > > > "By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society > > particpant > > of the Internet Governance Caucus." "If you cannot so affirm, please > > do not > > vote." > > > > I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And > > we have > > agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as > > a list > > participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please > > explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done > > before". > > > > Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous > > discussions > > you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they > > subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say > > that this > > is what we have "done before". > > > > Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had > > never > > agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > > > charter'. > > > > So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done > > is that > > whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single > > step along > > with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing > > to the > > charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list > > for at > > least 2 months). > > > > There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I > > don't know > > why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like > > 'principles' > > issue. > > > > It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the > > same > > step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have > > preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots > > along.... I > > will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give > > their > > reason as well, while responding to my reasons... > > > > (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as > > well, and > > it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at > > present... > > > > > > (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must > > agree that > > they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part > > and > > just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a > > specific email > > about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the > > respondent > > clearly knows what she is responding to. > > > > (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just > > because they > > do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership > > because > > of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co- > > coordinators > > elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose > > membership? (I > > have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere > > was it > > mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain) > > membership, right. > > > > Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this > > simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when > > there is > > no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first > > agree that > > she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since > > the > > coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now > > and is > > convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this > > process. But, > > still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two > > step > > process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is > > gained > > by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion > > of > > subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am > > doing... > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within > >> the charter to do what we have done before - > >> > >> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > >> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to > >> the > >> charter. > >> > >> What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion > >> > >> The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe > >> they have consensus - and they might. > >> > >> I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my > >> continuing > >> objection to the decision. > >> > >> I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. > >> > >> I do not see what else I can do. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Avri > >>> > >>> I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You > >>> cannot > >>> just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the > >>> table. > >>> The ball is in your court > >>> > >>> Aaron > >>> > >>> On 6/26/08, William Drake > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I second the e-motion. > >>>> > >>>> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is > >>>> the > >>>> significance of someone saying they second a motion? > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 07:43:34 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <20080627082932.9B59DA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <486380E6.7474189F@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, I for one sympathize with your position and contention. I think the crux of the problem here is which interpratation of the Charter is or is not the correct one AND as such, whom can or cannot vote. Frankly as the Charter does not directly diliniate whom has voting rights or whom does not, whatever one person says is the correct interpratation of the Charter is, does not seemingly reflect the interests of good governance, and cannot as such be the deciding factor as to whom can or cannot vote. I hope the IGC does not turn into a dictatorship or a collective dictatorship, however benevelent such may be when such weighty issues that may effect so many are being considered, discussed, and debated. Parminder wrote: > Avri > > Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into > arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because once > again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process that all > organizations do... > > This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a group of > such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to single > member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the charter' > come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few > months mainly because of this one issue. > > (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological position, but > there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say that you > agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask > everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.) > > Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales.... > > > The list discussed this before. > > Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I have > posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a few times > now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view, ended with > enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed. For > instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others, clearly asked > me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his posting in > the current discussion means, in that context)................ > > I think it is adequate, and within > > the charter to do what we have done before - > > > > - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > > - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > > charter. > > Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last time. This > only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have forgotten > because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times now on > this list. > > There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text on the > ballot read - > > "By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society particpant > of the Internet Governance Caucus." "If you cannot so affirm, please do not > vote." > > I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And we have > agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as a list > participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please > explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done > before". > > Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous discussions > you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they > subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say that this > is what we have "done before". > > Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had never > agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > charter'. > > So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done is that > whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single step along > with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing to the > charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list for at > least 2 months). > > There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I don't know > why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like 'principles' > issue. > > It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the same > step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have > preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots along.... I > will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give their > reason as well, while responding to my reasons... > > (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as well, and > it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at present... > > (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must agree that > they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part and > just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a specific email > about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the respondent > clearly knows what she is responding to. > > (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just because they > do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership because > of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co-coordinators > elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose membership? (I > have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere was it > mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain) > membership, right. > > Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this > simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when there is > no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first agree that > she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since the > coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now and is > convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this process. But, > still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two step > process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is gained > by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion of > subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am doing... > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > > Hi, > > > > The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within > > the charter to do what we have done before - > > > > - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot > > - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to the > > charter. > > > > What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion > > > > The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe > > they have consensus - and they might. > > > > I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my continuing > > objection to the decision. > > > > I also will not be responding to the coordinators request. > > > > I do not see what else I can do. > > > > a. > > > > On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > > > > Dear Avri > > > > > > I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You cannot > > > just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the > > > table. > > > The ball is in your court > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On 6/26/08, William Drake wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > > >> > > >>> I second the e-motion. > > >> > > >> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is > > >> the > > >> significance of someone saying they second a motion? > > >> > > >> Bill > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Jun 27 05:50:52 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:50:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080627094200.D92A0A6CC7@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <6C518CC4-0779-4AC0-A850-E4D257E97769@psg.com> <20080627094200.D92A0A6CC7@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080627095052.GA547@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 03:11:49PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > Since you wrote most of the charter I am ready to make an > exception in your case and put your name automatically on the members list, > and send a ballot. I.e. if no one objects... But I am not sure what would I > do if another person asked for the same exception, and then another. If someone explicitly asks for that, I think you could consider it as equivalent to replying your confirmation message. :-) And you could include Avri on the grounds that she's accepted the charter on the list - surely as good as doing it in a private message, no? -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 07:48:36 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:48:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <31349440.1214529765260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4864A55D.9040603@peter-dambier.de> Message-ID: <48638214.32CDA42@ix.netcom.com> Peter and all, I can't answer your question, as I do not know. I also wouldn't worry if lurkers or otherwise "Like" you or anyone else has anything to do with addressing arguments and issues that may/will incur from deliberations on this forum of the IGC. I hope that no one else does either. Peter Dambier wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > this will be interesting in deed. > I wonder if lurkers like me ... > > Cheers > Peter > > Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Suresh and all, > > > > Sorry that you take such an attitude. Not very individual user > > friendly. >:( And the governance organization purports itself > > to be open and transparent to independant users? How so? > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >> Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:08 PM > >> To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron , William Drake > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >> Yes. Thank God. > >> > >> Jeffrey A. Williams [25/06/08 18:26 -0700]: > >>> Suresh and all, > >>> > >>> Well I have only been on this forum for about three weeks. So > >>> does that make me not eledgable? > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- > Peter and Karin Dambier > Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana > Rimbacher Strasse 16 > D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher > +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > mail: peter at peter-dambier.de > http://www.peter-dambier.de/ > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jun 27 05:56:43 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:56:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <6C518CC4-0779-4AC0-A850-E4D257E97769@psg.com> Message-ID: <54000374-2082-49CF-B886-1B8BF4CFCC8C@psg.com> On 27 Jun 2008, at 11:41, Parminder wrote: > But I am not sure what would I > do if another person asked for the same exception, and then another. i have not asked for an exception. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 07:54:10 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:54:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <20080627091313.60B19E35B9@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48638362.AC0C6B73@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, I had thought that in subscribing to this forum one was also applying to the charter. Is this not so? Are these two different functions? If so, where may one than subscribe to the Charter? Parminder wrote: > McTim > > >She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act as > >per the charter. > > You do not mention the issue of 'subscribing to the charter', which is the > criterion of membership as per the charter, at all here. Interestingly, this > was a strong refrain throughout your discussions on the IGIs and nomcom > issue... you kept pledging by 'all those who subscribe to the charter'..... > > >Forcing us to > > "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed > > the charter. > > When did you sign the charter - by voting for it? Well, unfortunately while > we have the list of all those who voted during the charter vote, there is no > break up of who voted for and who against. Should I take all those who > voting during this vote (even those who opposed it) as having signed the > charter ? I can, but is this your view. > > Or did you sign by voting in the coordinators elections, but then do those > who didn't vote become non members (see my last email) > > Also, should the membership list be frozen after charter and co-coordinator > votes, or can I again ask all those on the list if they are willing to > subscribe and become members.... > > Since we do not have a clear members list what exactly is so evil in saying, > well lets have one, and things will be simpler from there on. Specifically, > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the > charter. Or is it that you find this as another good issue to oppose > something I am trying to do and enter into endless arguments. > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:36 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > > > Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to > > be > > > members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > > > Precisely, it's nothing to do with transparency and openness (or lack > > thereof on Avri's part. She is simply explaining that we affirm > > membership during the voting act as per the charter. Forcing us to > > "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed > > the charter. If I, for one, am disenfranchised because I insist on > > following the charter that will be the second time in as many months > > that rights of members have been abridged. A worrying trend. > > > > Any vote that does not follow the charter will most certainly be invalid. > > > > > > Members resign. Why? > > political correctness? > > Spartacus Youth League! > > > > > > -- > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 27 06:15:20 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:15:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Despite your efforts to efforts paint me as a "self-identified > spokesperson" for the Internet technical community, I have never > claimed this role, only given my opinion on the matter. OK. > and you are now of the view that a governance organisation CANNOT be > CS? What about my example of a School Board, composed of volunteers > from the community that the school serves, > no government involved anywhere, School Board members are elected parts of local govt in my community and in most local communities in the US. But that's a good example. If you are forming a group of civil society advocates/activists in a local community around educational policy, and you are particularly interested in organizing to get the local school board to develop or change its policies in some way, you might view the chair of the local School Board as a valuable source of information about how the system works, and as a potential ally, but you would not want that person to represent your interests regarding changes or criticism of his/her own Board. > While it is true that the Internet Society has businesses as members, > I must point out that this does not disqualify them from CS. Of course not > self-identification is at the heart of our charter, the NomCom has > done away with this self-identification in the case of fulltime staff > of "existing Internet governance bodies" in that they can > self-identify as much as they want, but they can't have the same > rights you have Milton, and I think that's absolute rubbish. They have the same rights, as I've said 100 times I would think twice about a potential conflict of interest before expecting them to represent me on issues related to the policies of their own employer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 08:12:30 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:12:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <20080627092155.020C56B299@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <486387AD.D841BE4@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Ok, thank you for clarifying your interpretation of the Charter. If it is indeed correct, which I don't believe it is, I will comply and recognize that as I have only been subscribed for 2-3 weeks, I an not eligible to vote. As such to the above, I wish to make known my protest and objection to the supposed "60 day waiting period" before a member/subscriber is eligible to vote. I do so in the grounds that when I turned 18 years of age, many years ago, I was eligible to vote in that very day and did vote in a special election 5 days after my 18th birthday. Additionally on that same day I turned 18 years of age, I was required to register for the military draft, which I did, and was than eligible to go to war and potentially die or be injured seriously in the service of my country in time of war or other military combat conflict. I did go to war that same year and my life was at serious risk immediately. Ergo, I personally and logically find it indelibly unreasonable that if any IGC subscriber/member cannot vote on the same day they subscribe accordingly. Parminder wrote: > Sivasubramanian, > > Yes, you can become a member of the IGC even on the first day of your > subscription to the list by subscribing to the IGC charter (pl read the > charter at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), and > accepting membership. > > However, you do not have voting rights for the first 60 days of your > subscription to the list. After that, if you have already accepted > membership, you will AUTOMATICALLY be considered to have full voting rights. > > I am happy to clarify further if needed to the new participants on this > list. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:11 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Cc: Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > > Hello Parminder, > > > > Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be > > included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get > > to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of > > my sign up? > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > India. > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder > > wrote: > > > > > >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > > >> charter in so doing. > > >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > > > > > > > > > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not > > vote > > > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because > > of > > > that? Are they non-members now?? > > > > > > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators > > election), > > > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... > > > > > > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per > > > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which > > are > > > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > > >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM > > >> To: Governance Caucus > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > >> > > >> hi, > > >> > > >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > > >> charter in so doing. > > >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > > >> > > >> > > >> a. > > >> > > >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I second the e-motion. > > >> > > > >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is > > the > > >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > > >> > > > >> > Bill > > >> > > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 06:47:25 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:17:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080627092155.020C56B299@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080627092155.020C56B299@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, Thank you for your response. It is fair that you have stipulated 60 days of participation as eligibility criteria. I was only concerned about membership, not voting rights. Thank you again. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Parminder wrote: > Sivasubramanian, > > Yes, you can become a member of the IGC even on the first day of your > subscription to the list by subscribing to the IGC charter (pl read the > charter at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), and > accepting membership. > > However, you do not have voting rights for the first 60 days of your > subscription to the list. After that, if you have already accepted > membership, you will AUTOMATICALLY be considered to have full voting rights. > > I am happy to clarify further if needed to the new participants on this > list. > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:11 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> Hello Parminder, >> >> Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be >> included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get >> to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of >> my sign up? >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> India. >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder >> wrote: >> > >> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >> >> charter in so doing. >> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. >> > >> > >> > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not >> vote >> > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because >> of >> > that? Are they non-members now?? >> > >> > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators >> election), >> > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... >> > >> > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per >> > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which >> are >> > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? >> > >> > Parminder >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM >> >> To: Governance Caucus >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> >> >> hi, >> >> >> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >> >> charter in so doing. >> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. >> >> >> >> >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I second the e-motion. >> >> > >> >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is >> the >> >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? >> >> > >> >> > Bill >> >> > >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 06:55:20 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:25:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <20080627092155.020C56B299@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, Is there a process for accepting the charter? Or do I simply declare here in the list that I subscribe to the Charter ? There is no navigation controls on the page http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html to indicate that I subscribe to the charter.... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Parminder, > > Thank you for your response. It is fair that you have stipulated 60 > days of participation as eligibility criteria. I was only concerned > about membership, not voting rights. > > Thank you again. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Parminder wrote: >> Sivasubramanian, >> >> Yes, you can become a member of the IGC even on the first day of your >> subscription to the list by subscribing to the IGC charter (pl read the >> charter at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), and >> accepting membership. >> >> However, you do not have voting rights for the first 60 days of your >> subscription to the list. After that, if you have already accepted >> membership, you will AUTOMATICALLY be considered to have full voting rights. >> >> I am happy to clarify further if needed to the new participants on this >> list. >> >> Parminder >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:11 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>> Cc: Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>> >>> Hello Parminder, >>> >>> Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be >>> included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get >>> to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of >>> my sign up? >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> India. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >>> >> charter in so doing. >>> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. >>> > >>> > >>> > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did not >>> vote >>> > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership because >>> of >>> > that? Are they non-members now?? >>> > >>> > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators >>> election), >>> > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... >>> > >>> > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as per >>> > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods which >>> are >>> > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? >>> > >>> > Parminder >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM >>> >> To: Governance Caucus >>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >>> >> >>> >> hi, >>> >> >>> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the >>> >> charter in so doing. >>> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> a. >>> >> >>> >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> I second the e-motion. >>> >> > >>> >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is >>> the >>> >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? >>> >> > >>> >> > Bill >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 08:53:48 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:53:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Documentto OECD References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4863915C.E40AD567@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, A few comments and observations if I may. First, nicely and craftily stated response in your last sentence, Milton. >:) I don't know anyone, nor have I ever know anyone that is, was, or could ever be a "self-identified spokesperson" for the Internet technical community." Not even the deceased Jon Postel. Private schools boards are not all elected part of local govt. communities. In fact to my knowledge most are not. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Despite your efforts to efforts paint me as a "self-identified > > spokesperson" for the Internet technical community, I have never > > claimed this role, only given my opinion on the matter. > > OK. > > > and you are now of the view that a governance organisation CANNOT be > > CS? What about my example of a School Board, composed of volunteers > > from the community that the school serves, > > no government involved anywhere, > > School Board members are elected parts of local govt in my community and > in most local communities in the US. But that's a good example. If you > are forming a group of civil society advocates/activists in a local > community around educational policy, and you are particularly interested > in organizing to get the local school board to develop or change its > policies in some way, you might view the chair of the local School Board > as a valuable source of information about how the system works, and as a > potential ally, but you would not want that person to represent your > interests regarding changes or criticism of his/her own Board. > > > While it is true that the Internet Society has businesses as members, > > I must point out that this does not disqualify them from CS. > > Of course not > > > self-identification is at the heart of our charter, the NomCom has > > done away with this self-identification in the case of fulltime staff > > of "existing Internet governance bodies" in that they can > > self-identify as much as they want, but they can't have the same > > rights you have Milton, and I think that's absolute rubbish. > > They have the same rights, as I've said 100 times I would think twice > about a potential conflict of interest before expecting them to > represent me on issues related to the policies of their own employer. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 07:00:24 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:00:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Despite your efforts to efforts paint me as a "self-identified >> spokesperson" for the Internet technical community, I have never >> claimed this role, only given my opinion on the matter. > > OK. > >> and you are now of the view that a governance organisation CANNOT be >> CS? What about my example of a School Board, composed of volunteers >> from the community that the school serves, >> no government involved anywhere, > > School Board members are elected parts of local govt in my community and > in most local communities in the US. My previous example (some weeks back) was of a private school, no govt funding or indded any gov't connection at all. But that's a good example. If you > are forming a group of civil society advocates/activists in a local > community around educational policy, and you are particularly interested > in organizing to get the local school board to develop or change its > policies in some way, you might view the chair of the local School Board > as a valuable source of information about how the system works, and as a > potential ally, but you would not want that person to represent your > interests regarding changes or criticism of his/her own Board. > Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that (private) school board is not a CS body (also a governance one). >> While it is true that the Internet Society has businesses as members, >> I must point out that this does not disqualify them from CS. > > Of course not > >> self-identification is at the heart of our charter, the NomCom has >> done away with this self-identification in the case of fulltime staff >> of "existing Internet governance bodies" in that they can >> self-identify as much as they want, but they can't have the same >> rights you have Milton, and I think that's absolute rubbish. > > They have the same rights, except they are excluded from being nominated to the MAG. as I've said 100 times I would think twice > about a potential conflict of interest before expecting them to > represent me on issues related to the policies of their own employer. By all means, think twice, but don't exclude a class of members based on an undefined criteria (we don't know which orgs the nomcom thought were "existing Internet governance organisations" ). I would think that ISOC would be on that list, but since they initially nominated an ISOC staff member, I guess they did not think that ISOC is an "existing Internet governance organisations". -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 07:13:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:43:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627111332.4D044A6CD9@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Hello Parminder, > > Is there a process for accepting the charter? Just say so in an email to me. An email to me, and not the list, is asked for so that members do not have to receive everyone's confirmatory email. At the end of 3 weeks I will publish all names of subscribing members, and some time for objections will be given before finalizing. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:25 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hello Parminder, > > Is there a process for accepting the charter? Or do I simply declare > here in the list that I subscribe to the Charter ? There is no > navigation controls on the page > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html to indicate > that I subscribe to the charter.... > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello Parminder, > > > > Thank you for your response. It is fair that you have stipulated 60 > > days of participation as eligibility criteria. I was only concerned > > about membership, not voting rights. > > > > Thank you again. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Parminder > wrote: > >> Sivasubramanian, > >> > >> Yes, you can become a member of the IGC even on the first day of your > >> subscription to the list by subscribing to the IGC charter (pl read the > >> charter at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ), and > >> accepting membership. > >> > >> However, you do not have voting rights for the first 60 days of your > >> subscription to the list. After that, if you have already accepted > >> membership, you will AUTOMATICALLY be considered to have full voting > rights. > >> > >> I am happy to clarify further if needed to the new participants on this > >> list. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:11 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > >>> Cc: Avri Doria > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >>> > >>> Hello Parminder, > >>> > >>> Though I have subscribed to this list four days ago, I wish to be > >>> included in this list. If I am not immediately included, will I get > >>> to be included AUTOMATICALLY when it becomes 60 days from the date of > >>> my sign up? > >>> > >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>> India. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Parminder > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > >>> >> charter in so doing. > >>> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 18 members voted for the charter but, just a few weeks later, did > not > >>> vote > >>> > in the co-coordinator election... Did they lose their membership > because > >>> of > >>> > that? Are they non-members now?? > >>> > > >>> > These include Ian Peter (is he eligible to stand for coordinators > >>> election), > >>> > Willie, Carlos Afonso, Anriette, Ken Lohento and many more... > >>> > > >>> > Isnt it better to have a clearer and more specific members list as > per > >>> > charter criterion rather than look for these round about methods > which > >>> are > >>> > clearly not adequate. Any good reason not to do so? > >>> > > >>> > Parminder > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > >>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:08 PM > >>> >> To: Governance Caucus > >>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >>> >> > >>> >> hi, > >>> >> > >>> >> if he voted before then he is a member because he agreed to the > >>> >> charter in so doing. > >>> >> there is a record of who voted before which the coordinators have. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> a. > >>> >> > >>> >> On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:53, William Drake wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Hi, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim > wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> I second the e-motion. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what > is > >>> the > >>> >> > significance of someone saying they second a motion? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Bill > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> >> > >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: > >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 27 08:03:50 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:03:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <4864af2a.1f538c0a.17f0.05c1SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4864af2a.1f538c0a.17f0.05c1SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > McTim > >>She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act as >>per the charter. > > You do not mention the issue of 'subscribing to the charter', which is the > criterion of membership as per the charter, at all here. It's quite implicit. Those who affirm membership while voting ARE subscribing to the charter by that act. "(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined." Interestingly, this > was a strong refrain throughout your discussions on the IGIs and nomcom > issue... you kept pledging by 'all those who subscribe to the charter'..... > WAS? it's still an open issue AFAICS. >>Forcing us to >> "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed >> the charter. > > When did you sign the charter - by voting for it? Well, unfortunately while > we have the list of all those who voted during the charter vote, there is no > break up of who voted for and who against. Should I take all those who > voting during this vote (even those who opposed it) as having signed the > charter ? I can, but is this your view. > This is not my view, I wish you would refrain from telling me what my view is, you get it wrong all too often. Read the charter again, it's fairly simple: "All individuals subscribed to the IGC mail list will be given voter accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter. " > Or did you sign by voting in the coordinators elections, but then do those > who didn't vote become non members (see my last email) Why would not voting change membership status? Just because one affirms membership during the voting act doesn't imply that one becomes a non-member by not voting. > > Also, should the membership list be frozen after charter and co-coordinator > votes, no or can I again ask all those on the list if they are willing to > subscribe and become members.... no > > Since we do not have a clear members list what exactly is so evil in saying, > well lets have one, and things will be simpler from there on. There is nothing simpler than asking people to affirm membership during the voting act. It's only when trying to "register" and dispense ballots that complexity comes into play. The "evil" is that you are trying to change our procedures that are clearly written into the charter. Specifically, > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the > charter. Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before. Or is it that you find this as another good issue to oppose > something I am trying to do and enter into endless arguments. I find it another example of you pushing your agenda on the group without respecting the clear instructions in our charter. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 27 09:27:42 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:57:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080627132753.4B0B0A6C98@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Specifically, > > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the > > charter. > > Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before. I am sticking with the two step process, for reason I mentioned, but just clarifying your stand. So, you are fine if as a part of the ballot one has to affirm that I have read the charter and subscribe to it, before one casts the vote. I have earlier and again in this thread that I am fine with this, and this serves the charter's membership criteria. However there are some operational difficulties whereby I prefer a two step process. And I repeat them (1) I know with comparable experience that many people will not respond to part (1) of such a ballot requiring affirmation of subscription to the charter and go ahead and vote. That cause confusion if the membership criterion is met, and things become messy in the middle of a voting process. (2) People who do not vote for some reason will not be in the members list, which creates issues with couple of IGC processes that may have membership implications. (3) Those who join between voting processes have to wait long - for a voting process - to become full members. This is unfair. (4) If in any case people joining in between voting episodes can become members by directly subscribing to the charter, why cant a uniform process be followed for all, and a full list of existing members kept, and regularly updated. There are some gaps and lack of clarity in the charter, and the process of voting in the last elections was also not done as per the charter. There was no charter subscription assertion in the ballot, or even a 'membership as per charter' assertion, only affirmation of being a CS participant of IGC, and the term participant has mostly been used here as a list participant different from member as per the charter criterion. So your vigilance about what is charter violation is quite partisan, one must say. There is also a difference in the charter between voters eligibility for normal voting process and for amending the charter (which has confusing definition of the 'last voters list' - whereby by not voting ones membership expires, something you spoke against in your email)and also membership criterion as mentioned in the membership part and charter amending part... Such gaps and lack of clarity is normal in the early life of such documents, and we should address them soon. Meanwhile if we are able to work together in good faith and go through the necessary organizational processes, it will be mutually useful.. After all, when you yourself quite clearly believe in affirming subscription to the charter, what exactly is the personal agenda that you suspect I am pushing through the process that I am steering... can you be specific about it. Otherwise you look like just doing some nitpicking in face of an important organizational process. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:34 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > McTim > > > >>She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act > as > >>per the charter. > > > > You do not mention the issue of 'subscribing to the charter', which is > the > > criterion of membership as per the charter, at all here. > > It's quite implicit. Those who affirm membership while voting ARE > subscribing to the charter by that act. > > "(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to > vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a > personal decision based on the criteria defined." > > Interestingly, this > > was a strong refrain throughout your discussions on the IGIs and nomcom > > issue... you kept pledging by 'all those who subscribe to the > charter'..... > > > > WAS? it's still an open issue AFAICS. > > >>Forcing us to > >> "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed > >> the charter. > > > > When did you sign the charter - by voting for it? Well, unfortunately > while > > we have the list of all those who voted during the charter vote, there > is no > > break up of who voted for and who against. Should I take all those who > > voting during this vote (even those who opposed it) as having signed the > > charter ? I can, but is this your view. > > > > This is not my view, I wish you would refrain from telling me what my > view is, you get it wrong all too often. > > Read the charter again, it's fairly simple: > > "All individuals subscribed to the IGC mail list will be given voter > accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective > voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the > group as described elsewhere in the charter. " > > > > Or did you sign by voting in the coordinators elections, but then do > those > > who didn't vote become non members (see my last email) > > Why would not voting change membership status? Just because one > affirms membership during the voting act doesn't imply that one > becomes a non-member by not voting. > > > > > Also, should the membership list be frozen after charter and co- > coordinator > > votes, > > no > > or can I again ask all those on the list if they are willing to > > subscribe and become members.... > > no > > > > > Since we do not have a clear members list what exactly is so evil in > saying, > > well lets have one, and things will be simpler from there on. > > There is nothing simpler than asking people to affirm membership > during the voting act. It's only when trying to "register" and > dispense ballots that complexity comes into play. The "evil" is that > you are trying to change our procedures that are clearly written into > the charter. > > Specifically, > > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the > > charter. > > Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before. > > Or is it that you find this as another good issue to oppose > > something I am trying to do and enter into endless arguments. > > I find it another example of you pushing your agenda on the group > without respecting the clear instructions in our charter. > > -- > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 09:28:29 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:28:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Austria, July 7-8 Message-ID: <00e001c8d859$b0702e50$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> -----Original Message----- From: Announcement list for Caring Technology Researchers [mailto:CARING-TEC-RESEARCH at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Caring-Tec-Research Sent: June 27, 2008 5:31 AM To: CARING-TEC-RESEARCH at JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: CfP: Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Austria, July 7-8 ~~~ CARING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT LIST ~~~ A moderated list to announce research jobs, studentships, conferences and workshops in: telecare, telehealth; assistive technology; inclusive design, and the accessibility of ICT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Send your announcements to: CARING-TEC-RESEARCH-REQUEST at jiscmail.ac.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTE: Please reply to article's originator, not the News Service ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICCHP 2008 11th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs July 9 - 11, 2008, University of Linz, Austria Pre-Conference, July 7 - 8, 2008 www.icchp.org UPDATE 06/08 ============ ICCHP 2008 is approaching fast. Time for some actual conference tidbits for your information: 1. WEB 2.0 Keynote & Party -------------------------- Rumors were afloat - now it takes a further step: On Friday, July 11, WAI-w3c will announce, discuss and present in detail the new guidelines for web-accessibility (WCAG 2.0)... AT ICCHP 2008! Don´t miss this unique chance to be part of a new milestone in web accessibility - we don't know if they are official then but we will party anyway! Further info at the conference website. (http://www.icchp.org/programme) 2. Workshops & Meetings ----------------------- There are some few slots and rooms for workshops and meetings to your disposal! If you have any idea or project you want to discuss or mainstream (technical & room facilities are free), get in touch with us immediately! (icchp at aib.uni-linz.ac.at) Also check out "What's wrong about failure", an open workshop by Dick Tucker that discusses what we can learn from R&D projects that went wrong. Take part and "confess" where you failed to push forward our field in the sense of Sir Karl Popper's "principle of falsification". 3. Poster Exhibition -------------------- Following multiple requests, there will be a poster exhibition at ICCHP 2008. If you want to present a project or an idea, please get in touch! (icchp at aib.uni-linz.ac.at) You will get a space of 2 x 1m to your disposal. 4. Specific Needs ----------------- In order to provide you with the necessary framework to take part most efficiently at ICCHP 2008, we organize a 'custom made' Specific Needs Service. Please inform us about your specific needs via eMail: specific.needs at aib.uni-linz.ac.at Moreover, you will find detailed information at our conference homepage. (http://www.icchp.org/accessibility) 5. Mountain Attack - Saturday, July 12 -------------------------------------- There have been changes in our agenda. Please check the conference homepage for further info and digest the photo-galleries for some actual on-site pics! (http://www.icchp.org/programme/mountain) ************************************************************** Come and get involved. www.icchp.org -------------------------------------------------------------- ICCHP 2008 will focus on all aspects of Technology and Assistive Devices for people with disabilities and the aging population: - Scientific Papers/Presentations published in Springer LNCS: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/index.html - Special Thematic Sessions - Keynotes - Young Researchers Consortium - Workshops - Hands on Trainings - Meetings - ICCHP Award -------------------------------------------------------------- If you do not wish any further information on ICCHP please send a short note to icchp at aib.uni-linz.ac.at. a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus Miesenberger University of Linz Institut Integriert Studieren Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz E-mail: klaus.miesenberger at jku.at WWW: http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/ Tel: +43-732-2468-9232 Fax: ...-9322 International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs ICCHP: http://www.icchp.org International Computer Camps for Blind and Partially Sighted Students ICC: http://www.icc-camp.info/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To join the Caring Technology Research Announcement List, send the message: JOIN CARING-TEC-RESEARCH your_firstname your_lastname to 'jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Announcement archives: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/Caring-Tec-Research.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !DSPAM:2676,4864e364227561950810787! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jun 27 11:19:54 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:19:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Technical Community Background Document to OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02e101c8d679$5a44bbe0$6701a8c0@michael78xnoln> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DAFB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB45@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB7E at SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, at 06:15:20 on Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Milton L Mueller writes >>What about my example of a School Board, composed of volunteers >> from the community that the school serves, >> no government involved anywhere, > >School Board members are elected parts of local govt in my community and >in most local communities in the US. As I mentioned to Milton in Paris the other day, I have a selection of hats... One of those is as a representative of parents on the "school board" at the public "high school" where my children attend. (The terms differ slightly in the UK, but I'll use the USA-ian words as they probably have more universal recognition). About half of the twenty-some members of that board are parental representatives, voted for by parents. Only one is currently a representative of the local government who fund the school. The remainder are a mixture of staff, private sector benefactors and "community" interests (almost entirely ex-parents), the first being selected by the staff the rest by the board. All are volunteers. I can imagine people asking "how does the local govt retain control with only one board member", but their funding is decided by a central government formula that no-one can change, and criticism of the school's performance is done by central government appointed inspectors. I can now imagine people asking what the school board's function is, and the longer I stay on it the less of an answer I have :) -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jun 27 12:06:09 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:06:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be > members of this caucus - not the other way around. But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jun 27 12:23:48 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:23:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different ideas of membership. One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are full members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to charter in order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus discussions and everything else - except a vote. Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are Caucus members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time we should be able to distinguish real members from list members. The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem to want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority who want to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle changes or major change we could make if that is what we are into. My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it explicitly if that is what we want to do. As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all list members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a voting member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in bad netiquette then a non voting member? a. On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: >> Hi, >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's >> objection. >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree >> to be >> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > > BD > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 12:28:51 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:28:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hiya Bill, On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be >> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. It's supposed to be a much more zen-like, "anarchic community" (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) rather than a political party with all it's concomitant "stuff" (like lists). Despite what some may feel, this is not a political organisation. We don't need to know who members are until AFTER the vote (ar at anytime that someone feels the need to declare themselves members). It's just as JH said "Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be members of this caucus - not the other way around." -- 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 12:34:34 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:34:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: the rights workshop In-Reply-To: <20080627090043.BE3026B2B1@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080627090043.BE3026B2B1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: The newly entered into force Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has language about access to all for all. I've sent some excerpts off list to Parminder. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 18:52:07 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:52:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <4864ead9.02578c0a.5db5.3189SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4864ead9.02578c0a.5db5.3189SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> Specifically, >> > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the >> > charter. >> >> Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before. > > > I am sticking with the two step process, for reason I mentioned, but just > clarifying your stand. So, you are fine if as a part of the ballot one has > to affirm that I have read the charter and subscribe to it, before one casts > the vote. no, it's much more nuanced than that, all one has to do is to ascertain they are a member and vote, if they click the little radio button that says "Yes" when asked to affirm membership of the IGC. If they click "No", then they don't get to see the next screen (where one votes). That's how I see it anyway. > > I have earlier and again in this thread that I am fine with this, and this > serves the charter's membership criteria. However there are some operational > difficulties whereby I prefer a two step process. Despite the fact that it doesn't match what it says in the charter? Why don't you seek to change the charter text instead? > > And I repeat them > > (1) I know with comparable experience that many people will not respond to > part (1) of such a ballot requiring affirmation of subscription to the > charter and go ahead and vote. That cause confusion if the membership > criterion is met, and things become messy in the middle of a voting process. See above for the way I think it should work, web page wise, which would eliminate any possible mess and confusion in re: the above. > > > (2) People who do not vote for some reason will not be in the members list, > which creates issues with couple of IGC processes that may have membership > implications. Which pray tell? I see nothing not covered by the current charter's flexibility. > > (3) Those who join between voting processes have to wait long - for a voting > process - to become full members. This is unfair. > Anyone can join at anytime, and, as AD said they are "full members in everything but voting", can't say fairer than that, can you? What's unfair is your trying to make this decision without consensus (that I haven't seen you declare). > (4) If in any case people joining in between voting episodes can become > members by directly subscribing to the charter, why cant a uniform process > be followed for all, and a full list of existing members kept, and regularly > updated. because, we are not a political party or an "organization", the charter doesn't provide for having a list, except the one that is published after a vote. It does, however provide a uniform process for all. > There are some gaps and lack of clarity in the charter, and the process of > voting in the last elections was also not done as per the charter. There was > no charter subscription assertion in the ballot, or even a 'membership as > per charter' assertion, only affirmation of being a CS participant of IGC, Just because we didn't get it right last time, doesn't mean we should repeat the same mistake. I think last time was a better effort than this time (where we are willfully not following the charter). > and the term participant has mostly been used here as a list participant > different from member as per the charter criterion. Just because people use it as shorthand, doesn't mean that the use of the term is accurate. So your vigilance about > what is charter violation is quite partisan, one must say. On the contrary, when I feel the charter is violated, I speak up about it. The affirmation used last time didn't trigger any alarms for me at least. > There is also a difference in the charter between voters eligibility for > normal voting process and for amending the charter (which has confusing > definition of the 'last voters list' - whereby by not voting ones membership > expires, something you spoke against in your email)and also membership > criterion as mentioned in the membership part and charter amending part... > It''s not that your membership expires, it's that you can't vote in this particular instance. So, your proposing to keep a list and let everyone on the members list vote for a charter change in violation of the charter? > Such gaps and lack of clarity is normal in the early life of such documents, > and we should address them soon. Meanwhile if we are able to work together > in good faith and go through the necessary organizational processes, it will > be mutually useful.. > The "necessary organizational process" as Avri says is a change in the charter, something I have been advocating for many weeks now. > After all, when you yourself quite clearly believe in affirming subscription > to the charter, what exactly is the personal agenda that you suspect I am > pushing through the process that I am steering... can you be specific about > it. In this case, your personal agenda seems to be making a list, asking people to affirm before they vote, not as they do it. Otherwise you look like just doing some nitpicking in face of an > important organizational process. Standing on principle is picking nits? If so, I am in good company, see AD and JHs latest mails. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 21:23:07 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:23:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <486440FB.4F7C5DBB@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, I believe that whatever "Bad netiquette" is be defined in no uncertain terms. The refrence to the term "Troll" is a particularly offensive term/name calling. I would suppose that the use of such a term/name calling would be sufficently offensive to be considered "Bad netiquette". So Avri, I would kindly ask that you and everyone discontinue using such a offensive/name calling/derogatory term. Thank you for your cooperation in advance in doing so. Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different > ideas of membership. > > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are > full members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to > charter in order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus > discussions and everything else - except a vote. > > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are > Caucus members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time > we should be able to distinguish real members from list members. > > The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem > to want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority > who want to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle > changes or major change we could make if that is what we are into. > > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it > explicitly if that is what we want to do. > > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all > list members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a > voting member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in > bad netiquette then a non voting member? > > a. > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's > >> objection. > >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree > >> to be > >> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > > > > BD > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Jun 27 23:53:39 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed Message-ID: All, Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA Auctions http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC probe, that may flush out the bushes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 03:03:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:03:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed References: Message-ID: <486490A6.7225FDCB@ix.netcom.com> Yehuda and all, Done. I seriously doubt that the ALAC can flush anything out or down, as it were. Dot.Asia has been a moderately too a very poorly manage registry sense it's very conception. It remains so. It comes as no surprise that others have finally taken note and interest in recognizing this more broadly recognized fact. It is rather amazing to me that ICANN has not yet redeligated this Registry to more a more appropriate party or parties. But this is partly due to ICANN itself having glaring and significant management and leadership deficiencies that have been shown time and time again. Yehuda Katz wrote: > All, > > Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. > > It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA > Auctions > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html > > The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC probe, > that may flush out the bushes. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 03:39:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:39:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Money influences? Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money Message-ID: <4864991C.747A7ED8@ix.netcom.com> All, A real governance issue. Kudos to Maplight! A nice analysis by Maplight.org indicating that those Democratic representatives who changed their vote on telecom immunity between March and June received on average http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those Democrats who held firm. Maplight asks, "Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart? Their constituents deserve answers." Across both parties, representatives who voted for immunity in June had received almost twice a much telecom money as those who voted against. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/telecom-amnesty.html Wired's coverage includes a quote from Larry Lessig, who is on the Maplight board: "Money corrupts the process of reasoning. [Lawmakers] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 28 02:56:53 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:56:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB9C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Bill on this. I don't see how asking people at this stage hurts anything. Let's go ahead with it. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > > BD > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 28 02:57:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:27:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080628065732.58B7B6B292@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim > all one has to do is to > ascertain they are a member and vote, if they click the little radio > button that says "Yes" when asked to affirm membership of the IGC. If > they click "No", then they don't get to see the next screen (where one > votes). That's how I see it anyway We will be doing email based voting rather than web based because more members are comfortable to do so.. I did discuss the possibility, in my discussion on this subject a few months back, of doing it more automatically like you say. But I am unable to find that technical option, while doing it with emails. As for saying 'yes' to what you describe as affirming membership, I prefer a more elaborate - "I have read the charter at .... and I am willing to subscribe to it, and hence accept the membership of IGC". (Can you state your problem with this description vis a vis a plain 'I affirm membership of the IGC". Is there any real difference because of which we are getting into this avoidable and endless debates) That's exactly what I am doing. I don't have the technical option to do it automatically if (1) is done to automatically go to (2), i.e. the ballot. Therefore I am doing it manually. If someone can give me a good technical option which will work in the situation of this caucus's membership I will be happy. In fact I had asked for such suggestions earlier... If you don't have such an option let me do it manually in two steps as I am doing it. In any case raising such methods issues, with no substantive implications, when a process has already commenced is very disruptive, and should be avoided. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:22 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > >> Specifically, > >> > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to > the > >> > charter. > >> > >> Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before. > > > > > > I am sticking with the two step process, for reason I mentioned, but > just > > clarifying your stand. So, you are fine if as a part of the ballot one > has > > to affirm that I have read the charter and subscribe to it, before one > casts > > the vote. > > > no, it's much more nuanced than that, all one has to do is to > ascertain they are a member and vote, if they click the little radio > button that says "Yes" when asked to affirm membership of the IGC. If > they click "No", then they don't get to see the next screen (where one > votes). That's how I see it anyway. > > > > > > I have earlier and again in this thread that I am fine with this, and > this > > serves the charter's membership criteria. However there are some > operational > > difficulties whereby I prefer a two step process. > > Despite the fact that it doesn't match what it says in the charter? > > Why don't you seek to change the charter text instead? > > > > > And I repeat them > > > > (1) I know with comparable experience that many people will not respond > to > > part (1) of such a ballot requiring affirmation of subscription to the > > charter and go ahead and vote. That cause confusion if the membership > > criterion is met, and things become messy in the middle of a voting > process. > > See above for the way I think it should work, web page wise, which > would eliminate any possible mess and confusion in re: the above. > > > > > > > (2) People who do not vote for some reason will not be in the members > list, > > which creates issues with couple of IGC processes that may have > membership > > implications. > > Which pray tell? I see nothing not covered by the current charter's > flexibility. > > > > > (3) Those who join between voting processes have to wait long - for a > voting > > process - to become full members. This is unfair. > > > > Anyone can join at anytime, and, as AD said they are "full members in > everything but voting", can't say fairer than that, can you? > > What's unfair is your trying to make this decision without consensus > (that I haven't seen you declare). > > > (4) If in any case people joining in between voting episodes can become > > members by directly subscribing to the charter, why cant a uniform > process > > be followed for all, and a full list of existing members kept, and > regularly > > updated. > > because, we are not a political party or an "organization", the > charter doesn't provide for having a list, except the one that is > published after a vote. It does, however provide a uniform process > for all. > > > There are some gaps and lack of clarity in the charter, and the process > of > > voting in the last elections was also not done as per the charter. There > was > > no charter subscription assertion in the ballot, or even a 'membership > as > > per charter' assertion, only affirmation of being a CS participant of > IGC, > > Just because we didn't get it right last time, doesn't mean we should > repeat the same mistake. I think last time was a better effort than > this time (where we are willfully not following the charter). > > > and the term participant has mostly been used here as a list participant > > different from member as per the charter criterion. > > Just because people use it as shorthand, doesn't mean that the use of > the term is accurate. > > > So your vigilance about > > what is charter violation is quite partisan, one must say. > > On the contrary, when I feel the charter is violated, I speak up about > it. The affirmation used last time didn't trigger any alarms for me > at least. > > > > There is also a difference in the charter between voters eligibility for > > normal voting process and for amending the charter (which has confusing > > definition of the 'last voters list' - whereby by not voting ones > membership > > expires, something you spoke against in your email)and also membership > > criterion as mentioned in the membership part and charter amending > part... > > > > It''s not that your membership expires, it's that you can't vote in > this particular instance. > > So, your proposing to keep a list and let everyone on the members list > vote for a charter change in violation of the charter? > > > Such gaps and lack of clarity is normal in the early life of such > documents, > > and we should address them soon. Meanwhile if we are able to work > together > > in good faith and go through the necessary organizational processes, it > will > > be mutually useful.. > > > > The "necessary organizational process" as Avri says is a change in the > charter, something I have been advocating for many weeks now. > > > After all, when you yourself quite clearly believe in affirming > subscription > > to the charter, what exactly is the personal agenda that you suspect I > am > > pushing through the process that I am steering... can you be specific > about > > it. > > In this case, your personal agenda seems to be making a list, asking > people to affirm before they vote, not as they do it. > > Otherwise you look like just doing some nitpicking in face of an > > important organizational process. > > Standing on principle is picking nits? If so, I am in good company, > see AD and JHs latest mails. > > -- > 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 28 02:59:58 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:59:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DB9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > It's supposed to be a much more zen-like, "anarchic community" (if > you'll pardon the oxymoron) Who said? I don't find "zen" in the charter. > Despite what some may feel, > this is not a political organisation. What!?!? > It's just as JH said "Through the act of voting, people acknowledge > the charter and agree to be > members of this caucus - not the other way around." Since we haven't had a vote that I can recall, what is wrong with doing a poll now? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 28 03:10:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:40:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080628071106.9FAFFE143F@smtp3.electricembers.net> >The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem to >want some version of the second definition. Avri The charter is clear about how it defines membership. To quote "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus." And this is from the 'Membership' section which is way up in the charter, immediately after objectives and tasks of the IGC, and not from the voting section, which comes much later. Obviously this definition of membership has a greater meaning than just episodic meaning only at times of voting. However, generally in all aspects of deliberative activity etc on the list - and I agree with you on this - no distinction is made between those who may have subscribed to the charter and those who haven't. We are working within this definition of membership and not outside the charter as you seem to imply. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:54 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hi, > > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different > ideas of membership. > > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are > full members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to > charter in order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus > discussions and everything else - except a vote. > > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are > Caucus members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time > we should be able to distinguish real members from list members. > > The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem > to want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority > who want to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle > changes or major change we could make if that is what we are into. > > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it > explicitly if that is what we want to do. > > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all > list members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a > voting member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in > bad netiquette then a non voting member? > > a. > > > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's > >> objection. > >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree > >> to be > >> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > > > > BD > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 28 03:13:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:43:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080628071323.6C710E35BB@smtp3.electricembers.net> >It's supposed to be a much more zen-like, "anarchic community" (if you'll >pardon the oxymoron) rather than a political party McTim Nothing in my reading of the charter of the group makes it look like it was created as an anarchic community. Policy advocacy is stated as its central objective, and this objective is by all means very political. And no one thinks it is a political party. A political party - as an organization - aspires to political offices, this group doesn't. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hiya Bill, > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to > be > >> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > > > > But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > > It's supposed to be a much more zen-like, "anarchic community" (if > you'll pardon the oxymoron) rather than a political party with all > it's concomitant "stuff" (like lists). Despite what some may feel, > this is not a political organisation. We don't need to know who > members are until AFTER the vote (ar at anytime that someone feels the > need to declare themselves members). > > It's just as JH said "Through the act of voting, people acknowledge > the charter and agree to be > members of this caucus - not the other way around." > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Jun 28 03:19:18 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:19:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080628071106.9FAFFE143F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080628071106.9FAFFE143F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7ABC2CE2-465E-4ABD-8722-8FE69EC7B31B@psg.com> On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:10, Parminder wrote: > > We are working within this definition of membership and not outside > the > charter as you seem to imply. And that seems to be a matter of opinion. I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same issues over that vote. I reiterate I am not trying to initiate an appeal of your decision. I am just stating my opinion and the actions I will take personally based on my beliefs. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 28 03:29:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:59:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <7ABC2CE2-465E-4ABD-8722-8FE69EC7B31B@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080628072934.F2C52A6C90@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to > clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you > believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same > issues over that vote. You held an election as per you interpretation of the charter and also perhaps practical considerations where list participants cast votes without affirming membership as per charter's membership criteria, which is clearly stated as a condition of casting vote in the charter.... Why didn't you rather first initiate a process of amending the charter to say what you went ahead and did... I am highlighting this only to reassert that processes have their practical aspects and that some variances from written text which may subsequently be found perhaps a bit ambiguous can and should be resolved mutually in a constructive spirit. > > We are working within this definition of membership and not outside > > the > > charter as you seem to imply. > > > And that seems to be a matter of opinion. As is of course your opinion that charter needed to amended before... Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:49 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:10, Parminder wrote: > > > > > We are working within this definition of membership and not outside > > the > > charter as you seem to imply. > > > And that seems to be a matter of opinion. > > I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to > clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you > believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same > issues over that vote. > > I reiterate I am not trying to initiate an appeal of your decision. I > am just stating my opinion and the actions I will take personally > based on my beliefs. > > a. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Jun 28 04:43:59 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:43:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Hi Avri, Nice seeing you in Paris. Now time for some friendly online disagreement, oh joy. On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different ideas of > membership. > > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are full > members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to charter in > order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus discussions and > everything else - except a vote. I wasn't aware that anyone has ever had this idea or had seriously advanced it over the past 5 + years. Maybe I've failed to read between someone's lines and into their heads. The caucus was set up during WSIS as part of a larger CS coalition with the explicit intent of promoting public interest positions on IG. We negotiated texts and made interventions in the governments' debates that reflected shared values, and we were small enough to know who each other was. During WSIS I the list membership and caucus were largely coterminous, but from early 04 the former grew rapidly to constitute an overwhelming majority of subscribers that had no interest in collaboratively promoting public interest positions on IG in international forums and, inter alia, did not sign the charter when invited to. They (includes staff folks from international business groups, ICANN, UN agencies, governments, etc) are here because they're interested in IG issues or at least have reason to keep an eye on the discussions, not because they believe themselves to be in the caucus. Since they're not confused on the point, I don't see how anyone else could be. This is the first I've heard of it. > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are Caucus > members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time we should be > able to distinguish real members from list members. Maybe not at any given moment, but perhaps once, for a first time since the charter was floated years ago, especially since we don't even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem to > want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority who want > to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle changes or > major change we could make if that is what we are into. Huh? The charter doesn't say join the listserv and you're in the caucus except for voting. It says, "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus." Full stop. The charter would only need to be changed if we wanted to adopt your first position, that anyone who simply signs onto a listserv is hence a caucus member. > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it explicitly > if that is what we want to do. Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we should pretend that the group exists. > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all list > members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a voting > member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in bad netiquette > then a non voting member? No, I did not suggest this. On an open list one obviously could not have a rule allowing one group to behave more badly than another. But at a personal level I'm more prepared to endure diatribes etc from someone who is committed to promoting public interest positions and trying to make the caucus function to that end than I am from someone who's here to promote other agendas or even disrupt caucus efforts. That's just my choice, and knowing who's in the caucus would facilitate this bottom up, self-governing perception management. Others of course make other choices and if they don't care about the sources and objectives of bad netiquette and even trollism, that's up to them. Best, Bill > > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. >>> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to be >>> members of this caucus - not the other way around. >> >> But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list >> subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with >> consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. >> >> BD >> _ *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Jun 28 04:47:14 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:47:14 +0200 Subject: Charter's ambiguities [WAS Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list] In-Reply-To: <7ABC2CE2-465E-4ABD-8722-8FE69EC7B31B@psg.com> References: <20080628071106.9FAFFE143F@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7ABC2CE2-465E-4ABD-8722-8FE69EC7B31B@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Le 28 juin 08 à 09:19, Avri Doria a écrit : > On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:10, Parminder wrote: > >> >> We are working within this definition of membership and not >> outside the >> charter as you seem to imply. > > And that seems to be a matter of opinion. It seems that the current charter leads to a great deal of matter of opinion, of various interpretations, etc. This, in itself, is the sign of too many ambiguities for a charter. One of its main ambiguities is the one you stated in a previous message: > Le 27 juin 08 à 18:23, Avri Doria a écrit : >> >> I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) >> different ideas of membership. Exactly, and we should all agree, whatever is one's idea of membership, that there is a big issue here that needs to be sorted out.. >> One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list >> are full members in everything but voting. For voting one must >> hold to charter in order to vote. I..e they can particpate in >> consensus discussions and everything else - except a vote. Yes. But at this point, one might question the validity and soundness of a process that doesn't require to agree with a charter defining almost all activities conducted by a group (we very seldom vote). Currently, we have to follow a charter that we don't even need to agree upon, in order to conduct the main activities of this group. I confess that I hardly understand why we need so strong criteria for the voting process, when this voting process is not used for our most important activities. Instead of wasting our time and energy on such issues, wouldn't it be simpler, and more appropriate, to revise our charter. One of the proposed revision would be to consider as members of this caucus anyone who subscribed to this list after having declared agreement to the charter. I don't even see the point in setting some subscribing time period before taking part in any vote, given that we only vote on caucus coordinator elections, which is far less important than other caucus activities like decisions on statements, participation to nomcoms, etc. If we are to vote on other issues in the future (after charter revision), then it would make sense. But as for now, it doesn't. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 08:37:43 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:37:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <4865e0dc.27b38c0a.35b5.7e4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4865e0dc.27b38c0a.35b5.7e4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > McTim > >> all one has to do is to >> ascertain they are a member and vote, if they click the little radio >> button that says "Yes" when asked to affirm membership of the IGC. If >> they click "No", then they don't get to see the next screen (where one >> votes). That's how I see it anyway > > We will be doing email based voting rather than web based because more > members are comfortable to do so.. I did discuss the possibility, in my > discussion on this subject a few months back, of doing it more automatically > like you say. But I am unable to find that technical option, while doing it > with emails. > > As for saying 'yes' to what you describe as affirming membership, I prefer a > more elaborate - "I have read the charter at .... and I am willing to > subscribe to it, and hence accept the membership of IGC". (Can you state > your problem with this description vis a vis a plain 'I affirm membership of > the IGC". Is there any real difference because of which we are getting into > this avoidable and endless debates) My problem with it is that you "prefer" it to the charter text. I don't think it's up to you to make that decision! > > That's exactly what I am doing. I don't have the technical option to do it > automatically if (1) is done to automatically go to (2), i.e. the ballot. > Therefore I am doing it manually. [ ] Place an x in the box on the left if you affirm membership in the IGC. Place an x in the box to the left of the candidates name you prefer for IGC coordinator [ ] Candidate A [ ] Candidate B [ ] Candidate C [ ] None of the above While the above is one way to do it in an email (and is closer to the charter than what you propose), it may not be acceptable to all. > > If someone can give me a good technical option which will work in the > situation of this caucus's membership I will be happy. In fact I had asked > for such suggestions earlier... If you don't have such an option let me do > it manually in two steps as I am doing it. > > In any case raising such methods issues, with no substantive implications, > when a process has already commenced is very disruptive, and should be > avoided. On the contrary, when a process does not follow the charter, one is obligated to make a protest. -- 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Jun 28 09:16:57 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:16:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Call for co-sponsors and speakers for the Mandate of the IGF workshop Message-ID: <480297C7-772D-4A6D-9BA2-308140BDA1F1@Malcolm.id.au> One of the IGC's workshop proposals this year has been a follow-up to last year's successful workshop on the role and mandate of the IGF. Amongst the purposes of the workshop, quoting from the proposal, are to: * review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate; and * consider what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for the IGF. The proposal has otherwise been complete for some time but the organisers have experienced some delay in sorting out speakers and co- sponsors. If you have suggestions for either, it would be appreciated if you could contact me off-list in the first instance, either with your suggestions or to request to be added to the organisers' mailing list. Many thanks. -- 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 Sat Jun 28 10:27:02 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0806280537k23e4329ehecb78c2c28559534@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: I agree with McTim's Logic on this thread. *BUT* feel strongly that the Ballots should be returned by Snail-Mail (Postal). Physical verification of the Vote(s) is a necessary condition, given the technical skill ablitites of this Group (mail-list members). Parminder; I formally call for this essential format condition (the postal-verification of Votes) be required. Re: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-06/msg00341.html ... snip > While the above is one way to do it in an email (and is closer to the > charter than what you propose), it may not be acceptable to all. ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Jun 28 10:54:36 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:54:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486650AC.9020706@rits.org.br> No need for this. Just use a secure mail-based voting system. NIC.br is providing this service for free for several organizations (NCUC, Latin American caucus etc). If you wish, I can get in touch with them and make the arrangements. Hope this does not unleash yet another endless discussion thread... ;) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > I agree with McTim's Logic on this thread. > *BUT* feel strongly that the Ballots should be returned by Snail-Mail (Postal). > Physical verification of the Vote(s) is a necessary condition, given the > technical skill ablitites of this Group (mail-list members). > > Parminder; I formally call for this essential format condition (the > postal-verification of Votes) be required. > > Re: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-06/msg00341.html > > ... snip > >> While the above is one way to do it in an email (and is closer to the >> charter than what you propose), it may not be acceptable to all. > > ... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 28 12:02:11 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: 486650AC.9020706@rits.org.br Message-ID: Thank You Carlos, YES, if you would please contact NIC.br regarding thier secure mail-based voting system, this would be a very good step. NIC.br would be a great 'third-party' to handle the distribution of Ballots. HOWEVER, I insist that the Ballots be returned via Postal Mail for physical verification, (for example) To: http://www.nic.br/ Av. das Nações Unidas, 11541, 7° andar 04578-000 - São Paulo - SP - Parminder: There are 371 Subscribers on this list, I will send Anyone of these Members the cost of thier postage, for sending in thier Ballot too whom & whatever Authority that is designated to conduct the Vote. That's approximently $371 USD plus the US Postal Services cost to return a payment to the Voting membership. This is my solemn word. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 14:19:52 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:19:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01ff01c8d94b$90facfb0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> I must say that I agree with Bill on this and have myself endured the destruction of several significant on/offline organizations through the repeated intervention of those wishing to destroy the group for personal reasons and willing/able to use as their IMD of choice an over-punctilious referencing to the "rules/constitution", acute legalism and widely proclaimed adherence to vaguely defined consensus/democratic principles where such rigourous documentation/legal specification was not the original capacity/intent of the group in the drafting of the rules/constitution. (Also, as here they were able to draw on support from well-intentioned others who agreed with one or another of the laundry list of legalisms presented by the destruction crew and which led to further confusion, marching briskly down blind alleys, and general diversion from the purpose and over-all direction of the group(s). Where there are shared values/norms/goals the relatively minor issues of "legality" which have been pre-occupying this group for the last month can be easily managed with a chuckle and a shrugging of the shoulders (although it is necessarily much much more difficult to communicate/achieve this in virtual form). Where the intent is to disrupt/destroy the group (read trollism) no amount of "discussion"/argumentation can do very much since the original document to which everyone is referring was drafted by well-intentioned people in haste rather than highly paid constitutional lawyers sitting for months in air-conditioned offices. Having just met a number (in the context of the Seoul OECD Ministerial) of business or government folks observing us on this list, I can assure you all that our collective behaviour in this is not winning us admirers among those whose support we would look for in the future as CS evolves in these areas. I haven't been following these discussions in detail but would again call for the question and would this time strongly urge whoever is in authority here (Parminder?) to follow whatever process is necessary to find out those who would self-identify as CS based on the original values/intent of the charter, have some sort of formal identification of those for voting purposes (membership in the mailing list as a criteria can't work), have a vote or whatever and move on. MG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: June 28, 2008 1:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Hi Avri, Nice seeing you in Paris. Now time for some friendly online disagreement, oh joy. On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different > ideas of membership. > > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are > full members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to charter in > order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus discussions and > everything else - except a vote. I wasn't aware that anyone has ever had this idea or had seriously advanced it over the past 5 + years. Maybe I've failed to read between someone's lines and into their heads. The caucus was set up during WSIS as part of a larger CS coalition with the explicit intent of promoting public interest positions on IG. We negotiated texts and made interventions in the governments' debates that reflected shared values, and we were small enough to know who each other was. During WSIS I the list membership and caucus were largely coterminous, but from early 04 the former grew rapidly to constitute an overwhelming majority of subscribers that had no interest in collaboratively promoting public interest positions on IG in international forums and, inter alia, did not sign the charter when invited to. They (includes staff folks from international business groups, ICANN, UN agencies, governments, etc) are here because they're interested in IG issues or at least have reason to keep an eye on the discussions, not because they believe themselves to be in the caucus. Since they're not confused on the point, I don't see how anyone else could be. This is the first I've heard of it. > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are > Caucus members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time > we should be able to distinguish real members from list members. Maybe not at any given moment, but perhaps once, for a first time since the charter was floated years ago, especially since we don't even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem > to want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority > who want to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle > changes or major change we could make if that is what we are into. Huh? The charter doesn't say join the listserv and you're in the caucus except for voting. It says, "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus." Full stop. The charter would only need to be changed if we wanted to adopt your first position, that anyone who simply signs onto a listserv is hence a caucus member. > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it > explicitly if that is what we want to do. Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we should pretend that the group exists. > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all > list members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a > voting member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in > bad netiquette then a non voting member? No, I did not suggest this. On an open list one obviously could not have a rule allowing one group to behave more badly than another. But at a personal level I'm more prepared to endure diatribes etc from someone who is committed to promoting public interest positions and trying to make the caucus function to that end than I am from someone who's here to promote other agendas or even disrupt caucus efforts. That's just my choice, and knowing who's in the caucus would facilitate this bottom up, self-governing perception management. Others of course make other choices and if they don't care about the sources and objectives of bad netiquette and even trollism, that's up to them. Best, Bill > > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's >>> objection. Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter >>> and agree to be members of this caucus - not the other way around. >> >> But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list >> subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with >> consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. >> >> BD >> _ *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 28 14:50:04 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:50:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DBA1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Thanks, Bill for a well-thought out reply. I find myself supporting the position you advance in regard to what constitutes membership in this caucus, and why it is no problem to clarify who considers themselves in and who doesn't. However, let me also try to clarify what may be motivating Avri and McTim's position (as I understand them) in order to pull out some important and valid points they make. I think Avri would like to see this list be "multi-stakeholder" rather than a political arm of some sector called "civil society." So if there are lots of people from govt, IOs, Internet administration agencies, etc., on this list and they are willing to engage in dialogue with us then we should consider their opinions. We want them to participate, but not to vote on our coordinators, etc. Personally, I believe there is a measure of validity in this but it's also true that most of those people are simply here as observers/ watchers of the environment. Very few are actually interested in engaging. At its worst, it can become a one-way flow of information that can be used strategically by people who may not share our views and interests. McTim provides an example of another issue. My understanding is that he is a member, albeit one who often disagrees with the mainstream positions here. Obviously I agree that the purpose of having this group is to formulate and advance a civil society-based conception of the public interest in IG. However, this purpose requires this group to accommodate a reasonable spectrum of opinion about what public policies are actually in the public interest. Because civil society itself is diverse on this question, it would be a mistake to allow a single, narrow ideology to establish a litmus test for inclusion, especially if and when the Secretariat of IGF grants us some kind of recognition as representing "civil society." So I would rather have a McTim or two or three around and insiders rather than outsiders. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:44 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > Hi Avri, > > Nice seeing you in Paris. Now time for some friendly online > disagreement, oh joy. > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different > ideas of > > membership. > > > > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are > full > > members in everything but voting. For voting one must hold to charter > in > > order to vote. I..e they can particpate in consensus discussions and > > everything else - except a vote. > > I wasn't aware that anyone has ever had this idea or had seriously > advanced it over the past 5 + years. Maybe I've failed to read > between someone's lines and into their heads. > > The caucus was set up during WSIS as part of a larger CS coalition > with the explicit intent of promoting public interest positions on IG. > We negotiated texts and made interventions in the governments' > debates that reflected shared values, and we were small enough to know > who each other was. During WSIS I the list membership and caucus were > largely coterminous, but from early 04 the former grew rapidly to > constitute an overwhelming majority of subscribers that had no > interest in collaboratively promoting public interest positions on IG > in international forums and, inter alia, did not sign the charter when > invited to. They (includes staff folks from international business > groups, ICANN, UN agencies, governments, etc) are here because they're > interested in IG issues or at least have reason to keep an eye on the > discussions, not because they believe themselves to be in the caucus. > Since they're not confused on the point, I don't see how anyone else > could be. This is the first I've heard of it. > > > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are Caucus > > members and those who are not. And that at any moment in time we should > be > > able to distinguish real members from list members. > > Maybe not at any given moment, but perhaps once, for a first time > since the charter was floated years ago, especially since we don't > even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > > > The charter currently defines membership in the first way. Some seem to > > want some version of the second definition. If there is a majority who > want > > to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle changes or > > major change we could make if that is what we are into. > > Huh? The charter doesn't say join the listserv and you're in the > caucus except for voting. It says, "The members of the IGC are > individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter > of the caucus." Full stop. The charter would only need to be changed > if we wanted to adopt your first position, that anyone who simply > signs onto a listserv is hence a caucus member. > > > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it > explicitly > > if that is what we want to do. > > Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the > caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we > cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we > should pretend that the group exists. > > > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all list > > members are the same in that respect. Or do you suggest that a voting > > member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in bad > netiquette > > then a non voting member? > > No, I did not suggest this. On an open list one obviously could not > have a rule allowing one group to behave more badly than another. But > at a personal level I'm more prepared to endure diatribes etc from > someone who is committed to promoting public interest positions and > trying to make the caucus function to that end than I am from someone > who's here to promote other agendas or even disrupt caucus efforts. > That's just my choice, and knowing who's in the caucus would > facilitate this bottom up, self-governing perception management. > Others of course make other choices and if they don't care about the > sources and objectives of bad netiquette and even trollism, that's up > to them. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's objection. > >>> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree to > be > >>> members of this caucus - not the other way around. > >> > >> But we never vote. So we have no idea which of the 360 list > >> subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with > >> consensus building, troll disruptions, etc. > >> > >> BD > >> _ > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf > *********************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 28 16:38:49 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:38:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080628072934.F2C52A6C90@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080628072934.F2C52A6C90@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0BA4D3D4-4988-47DE-B031-D3BD70D50E65@psg.com> Hi, I think it is al well and good that you are trying to make your point by arguing the illegitimacy of the election which elected you. I do think it would have been helpful for you to have done so earlier. Though I guess there is no statute of limitation of appeals. I will, of course recuse myself if you and a sufficient number of others do bring the previous election up as a matter of appeal. But to be clear. At the time, I posted the ballot with the statement of support for the charter several weeks to a month before the ballot and asked for comments. There were none, or at least none in the vein you now suggest. Had you commented then in the way you are directing now, we would have had this conversation a long time ago. As I remember it also did not come up during the charter discussion. Another point, contrary to your statement, I did _not_ write most of the charter. While i did produce a starter draft, many other people, you as well I believe contributed much to its final form and I do not believe it much resembles my first draft. a. On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:29, Parminder wrote: > > >> I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to >> clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you >> believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same >> issues over that vote. > > > You held an election as per you interpretation of the charter and also > perhaps practical considerations where list participants cast votes > without > affirming membership as per charter's membership criteria, which is > clearly > stated as a condition of casting vote in the charter.... Why didn't > you > rather first initiate a process of amending the charter to say what > you went > ahead and did... > > I am highlighting this only to reassert that processes have their > practical > aspects and that some variances from written text which may > subsequently be > found perhaps a bit ambiguous can and should be resolved mutually in a > constructive spirit. > >>> We are working within this definition of membership and not outside >>> the >>> charter as you seem to imply. >> >> >> And that seems to be a matter of opinion. > > > As is of course your opinion that charter needed to amended before... > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:49 PM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> >> On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:10, Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> We are working within this definition of membership and not outside >>> the >>> charter as you seem to imply. >> >> >> And that seems to be a matter of opinion. >> >> I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to >> clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you >> believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same >> issues over that vote. >> >> I reiterate I am not trying to initiate an appeal of your >> decision. I >> am just stating my opinion and the actions I will take personally >> based on my beliefs. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Jun 28 16:49:01 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:49:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DBA1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DBA1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <307767FA-986B-415C-B1EB-0B7A689F81F8@psg.com> On 28 Jun 2008, at 20:50, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I think Avri would like to see this list be "multi-stakeholder" rather > than a political arm of some sector called "civil society." nope, that is not it. i really do not think you should try to speak for me - rarely have we understood each other that well. i do not want this to be a multlstakeholder group - this is the caucus of civil society (i tried to found another group for the purpose of multistakeholder discussions, but that failed miserably.) a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Jun 28 17:09:20 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:09:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 28 Jun 2008, at 10:43, William Drake wrote: > especially since we don't > even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. we do. the coordinators of the caucus have the list of those who voted in the charter vote and those who voted in the first election. at least i think they do, i sent it to them in any case. > > Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the > caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we > cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we > should pretend that the group exists. there is nothing wrong with that. what i believe is counter the charter is that he will only sending ballots to those who respond to this message. he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every month, the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the list - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. i would argue that even having signed the charter before the vote, does not obviate the need to indicate that by voting they are claiming to support it. i mean it is possible that someone signs it one day because they they support what they understand it to say and then the next day find out it means something completely other then that and find that they can no longer support it. it could happen. a. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 20:16:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:16:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <20080628072934.F2C52A6C90@smtp2.electricembers.net> <0BA4D3D4-4988-47DE-B031-D3BD70D50E65@psg.com> Message-ID: <486582C2.6D29BB3E@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, What your and a few other are seeming to desire to do is that if one wants to vote in the IGC one has to swear fieldty to a document that they may or may not have had anything to do with or participated in it's creation and the principals in which is espouses. I suggest that seem allot like a Byzantine notion. Haven't "We", where "We" is all peoples where ever then my be advanced our society far past such notions? Once upon a time I was a member of the Democratic party in my country, than I became disillusioned circa 1970, and switched parties to Republican, in a few short years a la Watergate, I became just as disillusioned again, and became an Independent. I have been an Independent ever sense and hope to remain so. Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is al well and good that you are trying to make your point > by arguing the illegitimacy of the election which elected you. I do > think it would have been helpful for you to have done so earlier. > Though I guess there is no statute of limitation of appeals. I will, > of course recuse myself if you and a sufficient number of others do > bring the previous election up as a matter of appeal. > > But to be clear. At the time, I posted the ballot with the statement > of support for the charter several weeks to a month before the ballot > and asked for comments. There were none, or at least none in the vein > you now suggest. Had you commented then in the way you are directing > now, we would have had this conversation a long time ago. As I > remember it also did not come up during the charter discussion. > > Another point, contrary to your statement, I did _not_ write most of > the charter. While i did produce a starter draft, many other people, > you as well I believe contributed much to its final form and I do not > believe it much resembles my first draft. > > a. > > On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:29, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > >> I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to > >> clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you > >> believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same > >> issues over that vote. > > > > > > You held an election as per you interpretation of the charter and also > > perhaps practical considerations where list participants cast votes > > without > > affirming membership as per charter's membership criteria, which is > > clearly > > stated as a condition of casting vote in the charter.... Why didn't > > you > > rather first initiate a process of amending the charter to say what > > you went > > ahead and did... > > > > I am highlighting this only to reassert that processes have their > > practical > > aspects and that some variances from written text which may > > subsequently be > > found perhaps a bit ambiguous can and should be resolved mutually in a > > constructive spirit. > > > >>> We are working within this definition of membership and not outside > >>> the > >>> charter as you seem to imply. > >> > >> > >> And that seems to be a matter of opinion. > > > > > > As is of course your opinion that charter needed to amended before... > > > > Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:49 PM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >> > >> On 28 Jun 2008, at 09:10, Parminder wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> We are working within this definition of membership and not outside > >>> the > >>> charter as you seem to imply. > >> > >> > >> And that seems to be a matter of opinion. > >> > >> I think you should have attempted to revise the charter, if only to > >> clarify the ambiguities you have discovered, a while ago since you > >> believed as you do - though I guess we would have run into the same > >> issues over that vote. > >> > >> I reiterate I am not trying to initiate an appeal of your > >> decision. I > >> am just stating my opinion and the actions I will take personally > >> based on my beliefs. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 18:39:27 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:39:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Avri, On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > snip> > > what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the list - and > it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at that moment > they see themselves as supporting the charter. > This is the crux of the matter for me. It's what I meant by "zenlike/anarchic", one decides "in the moment" as it were that they are caucus members, no list needs to be made in advance. -- 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Sat Jun 28 18:42:49 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:42:49 EDT Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: Dear All -- ' I'd like to make a serious suggestion that I think could go far to restoring the image of this list. Why not have two different channels -- one for substantive discussion of Internet governance issues and another for Caucus process and procedure ? Frankly, I've gone way beyond being merely tired of the endless procedural discussions. They clutter up my e-mailbox. And they often seem to bring out the worst in people. I haven't fled the list because I don't want to miss the substantive information and discussions. Why not split the message traffic so that those who enjoy arguing about procedures are free to do so and others need not plough through all that traffic to get at the useful nuggets ? Best regards, Rony Koven ************** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jun 29 05:23:01 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:23:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] [procedure]Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6o2$$Kx1R1ZIFAWx@perry.co.uk> In message , at 18:42:49 on Sat, 28 Jun 2008, KovenRonald at aol.com writes >I haven't fled the list because I don't want to miss the substantive >information and discussions. Why not split the message traffic so that >those who enjoy arguing about procedures are free to do so and others >need not plough through all that traffic to get at the useful nuggets List participants can easily self-regulate a solution to this. Simply add an identifier to the subject line for procedural emails, as I have above. Readers (both human and software) can then choose to filter them out, or route them differently. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 29 10:40:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:10:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080629144033.D3C4FE35A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri > he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every month, > the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. So, as I understand, you have no problem with preparing a members list. Lets then first just go ahead and make this list as per the charter's conditions of membership. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:39 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > On 28 Jun 2008, at 10:43, William Drake wrote: > > > especially since we don't > > even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > > we do. the coordinators of the caucus have the list of those who > voted in the charter vote and those who voted in the first election. > at least i think they do, i sent it to them in any case. > > > > > Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the > > caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we > > cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we > > should pretend that the group exists. > > > there is nothing wrong with that. > > what i believe is counter the charter is that he will only sending > ballots to those who respond to this message. > > he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every month, > the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > > what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the list > - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at > that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. > > i would argue that even having signed the charter before the vote, > does not obviate the need to indicate that by voting they are claiming > to support it. i mean it is possible that someone signs it one day > because they they support what they understand it to say and then the > next day find out it means something completely other then that and > find that they can no longer support it. it could happen. > > a. > > > > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 29 10:45:05 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:45:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <8A5963DD-25D9-412D-9D3F-245F864202AD@acm.org> <48649AFA.1080902@wzb.eu> <2bd6d7670806270906o57ddb697i2b0af8d4a8ddb3b4@mail.gmail.com> <2bd6d7670806280143u586aec10i1b692b429870328c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 28 Jun 2008, at 23:09, Avri Doria wrote: > > what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the > list - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare > that at that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. it has privately been pointed out to me that the ballot did not say this. As i was accused of lying and trying to mislead people in the process, please let me correct myself: the ballot said: > By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society > particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus. > If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote. So, the person who wrote privately is right, i misremembered. I believe that at the time we all knew that this was something that was defined in the charter and that it went without saying. However, it would have been better if it had said at least "as defined in the charter" To go further, it was a stupid thing for me to say, since the charter does not require support in order to vote, to go back to the charter: ---- Voting Process Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account. As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self- defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election. Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals process. All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. --- some points - 1. every subscriber to the list at least 2 months before the vote gets a ballot. no constraints, not caveats. nothing. they get a ballot. 2. the self statement does make a reference to charter - "based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote)." so it would have made sense to add "as defined in the charter' in the ballot announcement. 3. no one brought this up at the time. 4. anyone could have appealed since the election is subject to an appeals process. so if people think that lots of people did not understand that the condition for being a CS member of IGC were defined in the charter, perhaps they should have appealed. As we do not have a statute of limitation on appeals, i suppose they still could. 5. nothing asks that one subscribe to the charter, only that they meet the conditions described in the charter. So i apologize again for getting carried away with the notion of having to believe in the charter in order to vote. that was never the intent of the charter and i am sorry that i may have added any semblance of credence or legitimacy to that notion. a. note: on the discussion of process making this list look less credible with some list subscribers. i am sorry if it makes some squeamish to watch the transparent process of sausage being made. i do not think, however, that it makes the list less credible - should we do it in secret like government institutions often do? i do, however, think that adding a label to identity those discussions that people are not interested in is a good idea. i don't know if the list software we use has any facility to help do that. i will try to add [process to my message dealing with these boring issues in the future. i do not know if i will have time to do anything automatic. and of course i cannot speak for what our coordinators might do or suggest. btw, i consider us getting our transparent and open process correct, among the more important things we can do - if we cannot run our CS IGC in an open and transparent manner with accountability and adherence to our charter then what good are we? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 29 10:50:33 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:50:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080629144033.D3C4FE35A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080629144033.D3C4FE35A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> hi, As i said, i do not think the charter speak to it, so you can. what i also said is that i believe this list cannot used for the sending of ballots without a change to the charter. a ballot goes to anyone who is a subscriber to the list 2 months before any vote. one does not need to subscribe to the charter to vote. one only needs to be a CS IGC participant as defined in the charter. i think from the discussions i have heard that some of our more active members do not do support the charter as they dislike certain features, e.g. nomcom processes, so unless we change the charter, i think it would be unfair to ask them to support the charter in order to have their voting rights. a. On 29 Jun 2008, at 16:40, Parminder wrote: > > Avri > > >> he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every >> month, >> the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever >> he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > > > So, as I understand, you have no problem with preparing a members > list. > Lets then first just go ahead and make this list as per the charter's > conditions of membership. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:39 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list >> >> >> On 28 Jun 2008, at 10:43, William Drake wrote: >> >>> especially since we don't >>> even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. >> >> we do. the coordinators of the caucus have the list of those who >> voted in the charter vote and those who voted in the first election. >> at least i think they do, i sent it to them in any case. >> >>> >>> Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the >>> caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we >>> cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we >>> should pretend that the group exists. >> >> >> there is nothing wrong with that. >> >> what i believe is counter the charter is that he will only sending >> ballots to those who respond to this message. >> >> he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every >> month, >> the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever >> he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. >> >> what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the >> list >> - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at >> that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. >> >> i would argue that even having signed the charter before the vote, >> does not obviate the need to indicate that by voting they are >> claiming >> to support it. i mean it is possible that someone signs it one day >> because they they support what they understand it to say and then >> the >> next day find out it means something completely other then that and >> find that they can no longer support it. it could happen. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> >> a. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 29 11:18:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:48:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080629151834.2BD14A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Avri > one does not need to subscribe to the charter to vote. (snip) > i > think it would be unfair to ask them to support the charter in order > to have their voting rights. The charter says - ".. the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter...." The 'elsewhere' implied here is the membership section which says " The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus." So, subscription to the charter and thus acceptance of membership is a clear pre-condition for voting. I am going by my above interpretation of the charter, and as a practical consideration doing the membership assertion and actual voting as a two-step process for various reasons explained multiple times earlier. I am sorry, but I will like to close this argument from my side at this stage. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:21 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > hi, > > As i said, i do not think the charter speak to it, so you can. what i > also said is that i believe this list cannot used for the sending of > ballots without a change to the charter. a ballot goes to anyone who > is a subscriber to the list 2 months before any vote. > > one does not need to subscribe to the charter to vote. one only needs > to be a CS IGC participant as defined in the charter. > > i think from the discussions i have heard that some of our more active > members do not do support the charter as they dislike certain > features, e.g. nomcom processes, so unless we change the charter, i > think it would be unfair to ask them to support the charter in order > to have their voting rights. > > a. > > On 29 Jun 2008, at 16:40, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Avri > > > > > >> he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every > >> month, > >> the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > >> he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > > > > > > So, as I understand, you have no problem with preparing a members > > list. > > Lets then first just go ahead and make this list as per the charter's > > conditions of membership. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:39 AM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > >> > >> > >> On 28 Jun 2008, at 10:43, William Drake wrote: > >> > >>> especially since we don't > >>> even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > >> > >> we do. the coordinators of the caucus have the list of those who > >> voted in the charter vote and those who voted in the first election. > >> at least i think they do, i sent it to them in any case. > >> > >>> > >>> Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the > >>> caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we > >>> cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we > >>> should pretend that the group exists. > >> > >> > >> there is nothing wrong with that. > >> > >> what i believe is counter the charter is that he will only sending > >> ballots to those who respond to this message. > >> > >> he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every > >> month, > >> the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > >> he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > >> > >> what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the > >> list > >> - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at > >> that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. > >> > >> i would argue that even having signed the charter before the vote, > >> does not obviate the need to indicate that by voting they are > >> claiming > >> to support it. i mean it is possible that someone signs it one day > >> because they they support what they understand it to say and then > >> the > >> next day find out it means something completely other then that and > >> find that they can no longer support it. it could happen. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 13:34:43 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:34:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> References: <20080629144033.D3C4FE35A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> Message-ID: HI Avri, On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > As i said, i do not think the charter speak to it, so you can. what i also > said is that i believe this list cannot used for the sending of ballots > without a change to the charter. a ballot goes to anyone who is a > subscriber to the list 2 months before any vote. > Exactly! If this doesn't happen, the vote will not be legitimate. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 13:59:16 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:59:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: <20080629151834.2BD14A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> <20080629151834.2BD14A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Parminder wrote: > > Avri > >> one does not need to subscribe to the charter to vote. > > (snip) > >> i >> think it would be unfair to ask them to support the charter in order >> to have their voting rights. > > > The charter says - ".. the voter must personally ascertain that they are a > member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this > charter...." > > The 'elsewhere' implied here is the membership section which says > > " The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who > subscribe to the charter of the caucus." This has been my reading of it all along. I am willing to consider AD's interpretation though. > > > So, subscription to the charter and thus acceptance of membership is a clear > pre-condition for voting. > This doesn't follow from the above interpretation! The coordinator sends ballots to all (who have been subscribed for at least 2 months). One affirms membership AS one votes, not before. > I am going by my above interpretation of the charter I would prefer you go by the charter text: "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account." How do you "interpret" that? -- 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 avri at psg.com Sun Jun 29 14:55:05 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:55:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> <20080629151834.2BD14A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 29 Jun 2008, at 19:59, McTim wrote: >> >> " The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal >> capacity, who >> subscribe to the charter of the caucus." > > This has been my reading of it all along. I am willing to consider > AD's interpretation though. > > i am willing to accept Parminder's interpretation of what it means to consider oneself a member. If I had not been so lazy in my exegesis, I might have gotten there myself. >> >> >> >> So, subscription to the charter and thus acceptance of membership >> is a clear >> pre-condition for voting. >> > > This doesn't follow from the above interpretation! i even accept this. one must say the are a member ... before they submit the ballot what i do not accept is that it be precondition for receiving a ballot. but i am not sure why we are still arguing as The Coordinator has said he is not willing to discuss it any further. He must be calling consensus on the issue. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 29 15:46:54 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:46:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: <041776B4-5670-4F98-84FB-0E115AC6115E@psg.com> <20080629151834.2BD14A6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 29 Jun 2008, at 19:59, McTim wrote: > >>> >>> " The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >>> who >>> subscribe to the charter of the caucus." >> >> This has been my reading of it all along. I am willing to consider >> AD's interpretation though. >> >> > > i am willing to accept Parminder's interpretation of what it means to > consider oneself a member. If I had not been so lazy in my exegesis, I > might have gotten there myself. > >>> >>> >>> >>> So, subscription to the charter and thus acceptance of membership is a >>> clear >>> pre-condition for voting. >>> >> >> This doesn't follow from the above interpretation! > > i even accept this. one must say the are a member ... before they submit > the ballot I can accept before submission. > > what i do not accept is that it be precondition for receiving a ballot. neither do I > > but i am not sure why we are still arguing as The Coordinator has said he > is not willing to discuss it any further. He must be calling consensus on > the issue. Apparently. I'll be offline for much of the the next 4 days, will be interesting to see what transpires. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 22:14:43 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:14:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list References: <20080629144033.D3C4FE35A0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4866F013.4447BB73@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, There still seems to be a disagreement as to what the charter says and what it actually means. What is the consensus of the determination as to resolving that? Parminder wrote: > Avri > > > > he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every month, > > the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > > he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > > So, as I understand, you have no problem with preparing a members list. > Lets then first just go ahead and make this list as per the charter's > conditions of membership. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:39 AM > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list > > > > > > On 28 Jun 2008, at 10:43, William Drake wrote: > > > > > especially since we don't > > > even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then. > > > > we do. the coordinators of the caucus have the list of those who > > voted in the charter vote and those who voted in the first election. > > at least i think they do, i sent it to them in any case. > > > > > > > > Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the > > > caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter. And if we > > > cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we > > > should pretend that the group exists. > > > > > > there is nothing wrong with that. > > > > what i believe is counter the charter is that he will only sending > > ballots to those who respond to this message. > > > > he could send out requests for people to sign the charter every month, > > the charter says nothing about that - so he is free to do so whenever > > he wishes in this respect - as long as his co-coordinator agrees. > > > > what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the list > > - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare that at > > that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter. > > > > i would argue that even having signed the charter before the vote, > > does not obviate the need to indicate that by voting they are claiming > > to support it. i mean it is possible that someone signs it one day > > because they they support what they understand it to say and then the > > next day find out it means something completely other then that and > > find that they can no longer support it. it could happen. > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Jun 30 05:27:06 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:27:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] What's Effect of Prolonged Surfing on The Net Message-ID: Hi all My friend stumbled into my house this morning and told me that his 24 years old son spends an average 14 to 16 hours on the Internet per day. He asked if this young man was running any risk by doing so. Can some one come to my rescue? Cheers Aaron -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Mon Jun 30 10:33:14 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:14 EDT Subject: [governance] [procedure]Fwd: IGC Membership list Message-ID: Dear All -- I don't see how the labeling idea below is a solution to the problem of being flooded by unwanted messages. The messages are gonna be in one's in-box, whether or not they're labeled. I really don't think I should have to instal a filtering system just to be able to continue to receive substantive IGC message traffic. I wasn't trying to suggest that procedural debate is like porn. What I was suggesting is that there should be two separate channels. Best regards, Rony Koven In a message dated 29/06/08 11:25:26, roland at internetpolicyagency.com writes: > In message , at 18:42:49 on Sat, 28 Jun > 2008, KovenRonald at aol.com writes > >I haven't fled the list because I don't want to miss the substantive > >information and discussions. Why not split the message traffic so that > >those who enjoy arguing about procedures are free to do so and others > >need not plough through all that traffic to get at the useful nuggets > > List participants can easily self-regulate a solution to this. Simply > add an identifier to the subject line for procedural emails, as I have > above. > > Readers (both human and software) can then choose to filter them out, or > route them differently. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ************** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 30 14:22:27 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:22:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] [procedure]Fwd: IGC Membership list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 10:33:14 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, KovenRonald at aol.com writes >I don't see how the labeling idea below is a solution to the problem of >being flooded by unwanted messages. The messages are gonna be in one's >in-box, whether or not they're labeled. I have a number of different mailboxes, they are organised like folders in a filing system (a bit like MS Outlook, but it's a different product). >I really don't think I should have to instal a filtering system just to >be able to continue to receive substantive IGC message traffic. Most email systems should have simple rules to filter out (or route into different mailboxes) emails with certain things in the subject line. That is exactly the reason that this mail-list program automatically puts the [governance] tag on, so people can do that easily. >I wasn't trying to suggest that procedural debate is like porn.  Nor I. >What I was suggesting is that there should be two separate channels Exactly so. Two channels but fed from one mail-list. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance